R25 - Gameday Warriors v Manly

[Rich102]

That was the game we needed. Manly had done their homework.
Showed the areas to work on.

 

[Philip_Smith007]

It wasn’t the fact he was touched while in the air, it’s that CNK had absolutely zero control in the tackle at all. If he grabs him in the air and holds him, there isn’t a dangerous position at all, but if a guy is in the air and you come through with an arm and take his legs out, it’s a dangerous position and zero control. He may have landed on his back, but while in the air, did his legs go past the horizontal ? Could compare it to a guy in the air after a kick, wrapping motion is fine, no attempt to tackle properly is not. Don’t know when the term came in, but have heard it the last couple of years about how the tackler has the duty of care when making his tackle, Charnze didn’t have that at all

End of the day, that wasn’t the worst call in the game, and we had a chance to defend it. Setting up for the droppie 3rd play before even exploring the Saab avenue was a poor option by DCE too. I thought the Harris try was worse, unless the bunker had secret angles, there was a hand under the ball when it first went over the line. I thought Garricks hand was clearly first to the ball as well, but we scored a min or 2 later to cancel that out



If that ginger headed clown is getting on the plane today, JT will probably be called out again. Did my head in the whole game watching how he would stand straight up after making his tackle, and the Warriors players would stand up and jump to the side to play it and the ref took it hook line and sinker, think it was 7-2 on the set restarts. Smart tactic by the Warriors which I’ve seen them use all year. Don’t see many players stay on the park for the Afoa hit either

Nice to be at the top of the ladder and get the calls

Nice to be at the top of the ladder and get the calls

It's bloody lovely. Haha

But let balance out some of the calls.

Bunty late shot = 10mins (Arthur's getting up saved him, scored 2 tackles later so clearly unaffected, needs to learn to stay down!)
DWZ 3rd man in at knees by Manly = 10mins

DCE tackling Ford no try = technically correct.
Garrick tackle in air landing on back = technically correct.

Harris try grounded?
Saab 3rd try forward pass? Touched? Lead runners into tacklers?

SJ called inside the 10m, looked like he just sprinted out.
Might balance a JT square marker call I didn't see through by 1 eyed Warriors glasses.

Harper's double elbow to face. (Second movements)

Manly forward leading with head on Montoya leading to HIA and out of game.

Egan tackled by markers not square on last in front of post.

Garrick second effort on DWZ off intercept. (DWZ sold it so well!)

Need some more clear Manly examples to balance it up.

 

[nswarrior]

Just watched the highlights.

Lot of 50/50 calls that seemed tough on both teams.

Poor 1st half from the Warriors, Metcalf and Montoya with some poor play. Montoya with a shocker really

Great 2nd half by the Warriors, 13-0 to come from behind at half time and win it.

Barnett will improve the team for sure but still work to do. The opposition teams are blatantly slowing down the ruck and it is frustrating the Warriors

 

[Blair]

The opposition teams are blatantly slowing down the ruck and it is frustrating the Warriors.

If we did that I reckon the ref would ping us at crucial times. These opposition teams are still playing with fire with this tactic. They wouldn't want to risk it too much in a final.

 

[JJ]

If we did that I reckon the ref would ping us at crucial times. These opposition teams are still playing with fire with this tactic. They wouldn't want to risk it too much in a final.

Until their are penalties it’ll continue, then they’ll adjust

but whistle goes away in finals…

 

[Beavers Headgear]

It's bloody lovely. Haha

But let balance out some of the calls.

Bunty late shot = 10mins (Arthur's getting up saved him, scored 2 tackles later so clearly unaffected, needs to learn to stay down!)
DWZ 3rd man in at knees by Manly = 10mins

DCE tackling Ford no try = technically correct.
Garrick tackle in air landing on back = technically correct.

Harris try grounded?
Saab 3rd try forward pass? Touched? Lead runners into tacklers?

SJ called inside the 10m, looked like he just sprinted out.
Might balance a JT square marker call I didn't see through by 1 eyed Warriors glasses.

Harper's double elbow to face. (Second movements)

Manly forward leading with head on Montoya leading to HIA and out of game.

Egan tackled by markers not square on last in front of post.

Garrick second effort on DWZ off intercept. (DWZ sold it so well!)

Need some more clear Manly examples to balance it up.

Lol didn’t sit there with a notepad mate so haven’t got exact examples for you, but the eye in the first 30 spotted the Warriors doing the same stuff we were getting pinged for with no calls, but that’s footy

If we had a close look can probably find a warriors player or 2 offside for that field goal attempt, but that’s part and parcel of it

Before I think the 3rd DWZ try, on the held up play for Curran, was an argument there that he didn’t control the ball until it touched a Manly player

Defence from both sides was more ordinary than the refs/bunker though, the game following it seemed a level above what we were watching

 

[Beavers Headgear]

He went full Ricky!
It's a sensational point to focus on but ref also missed JT not square at marker on last tackling Egan in front. There is a gift 2 points missed.
Saab's last try in first half looked forward and had question marks all over it. There is 6 points.

If we turn it to a penalty we will have player jumping up at bouncing balls to win penalties. And if landing on you back hard is dangerous/a penalty games in big trouble.

While the tackle in the air isn’t illegal, it’s hard to argue that he didn’t put him in a dangerous position. It’s going to be a polarising one

 

[SpaceMonkey]

 

[Matua]

While the tackle in the air isn’t illegal, it’s hard to argue that he didn’t put him in a dangerous position. It’s going to be a polarising one

View attachment 78240

They really should change the rule in the off season. It makes no sense that it isn't illegal only because the ball bounced off the ground as opposed to not bouncing off the ground.

 

[Hov]

Are we playing down a level to the opposition we are playing? If we play Brisbane/Penrith next week do we go up a notch and raise the level to match our opposition? I guess we find out in a couple of weeks.

Definitely a few warning signs as mentioned by others re ruck speed and edge defense but good to identify these now and Webby can get the team aware of it.

Barnett and Jazz will be good to have back next week too

 

[GoSouths]

Are we playing down a level to the opposition we are playing? If we play Brisbane/Penrith next week do we go up a notch and raise the level to match our opposition? I guess we find out in a couple of weeks.

Definitely a few warning signs as mentioned by others re ruck speed and edge defense but good to identify these now and Webby can get the team aware of it.

Barnett and Jazz will be good to have back next week too

Jazz did something to his hamstring. Not season ending but probably wont be available next week.

 

[Philip_Smith007]

They really should change the rule in the off season. It makes no sense that it isn't illegal only because the ball bounced off the ground as opposed to not bouncing off the ground.

Will it count if a player is jumping for a pass?
I think the dangerous position should be looked at, but that becomes a grey area, as last night Garrick never went into a dangerous position? Never past horizontal? 3 player tackle with back slamming and force and weight on top worse?
Did Garrick have to jump for ball? Putting himself in a dangerous situation.
Did Manly forward put his head in a dangerous position that caused Montoya headclash?
The optics make it look bad for sure.
It overshadowed the Saab 3rd try forward pass that no one is talking about.

 

[Philip_Smith007]

Are we playing down a level to the opposition we are playing? If we play Brisbane/Penrith next week do we go up a notch and raise the level to match our opposition? I guess we find out in a couple of weeks.

Definitely a few warning signs as mentioned by others re ruck speed and edge defense but good to identify these now and Webby can get the team aware of it.

Barnett and Jazz will be good to have back next week too

Who comes in on the left side defence?

 

[ZEROMISSTACKLES]

They really should change the rule in the off season. It makes no sense that it isn't illegal only because the ball bounced off the ground as opposed to not bouncing off the ground.

Yeah I know and slightly agree.

If they do change the rule then imagine this...Our forum member Manu Vatuvei brought this to my attention.

A team bombs the ball and it lands 5 metres out from the try line and it bounces up. If the no tackle in the air law is applied, the attacking team can then jump, catch the ball going forward, and score easily because the defending side is NOW not allowed to tackle them.

That would be a loophole that teams will take adavantage of on any bouncing bomb.

What happened to Garrick was bad but like Phil said - he landed on his back, he was ok in the end and he acts injured all the time.

 

[ZEROMISSTACKLES]

Are we playing down a level to the opposition we are playing? If we play Brisbane/Penrith next week do we go up a notch and raise the level to match our opposition? I guess we find out in a couple of weeks.

Definitely a few warning signs as mentioned by others re ruck speed and edge defense but good to identify these now and Webby can get the team aware of it.

Barnett and Jazz will be good to have back next week too

With the media talking in awe of our season every week, it's making the other teams more determined to knock us. The opposition know (and so do some of us) that whilst we are winning, we're more beatable compared to other three in the top four. Well thats what I think.

However were doing well to close out and get the win. Do we prove them wrong about us being beatable? not with the scorelines we've had.

 

[Beavers Headgear]

Yeah I know and slightly agree.

If they do change the rule then imagine this...Our forum member Manu Vatuvei brought this to my attention.

A team bombs the ball and it lands 5 metres out from the try line and it bounces up. If the no tackle in the air law is applied, the attacking team can then jump, catch the ball going forward, and score easily because the defending side is NOW not allowed to tackle them.

That would be a loophole that teams will take adavantage of on any bouncing bomb.

What happened to Garrick was bad but like Phil said - he landed on his back, he was ok in the end and he acts injured all the time.

That’s over complicating a simple enough solution

Treat it the same way that you treat a kicker on the last, you can make contact, but it has to be a proper tackling/wrapping motion that doesn’t put the player into a dangerous position. It’s all about being in control of the tackle

If we just consider that landing on your back means the tackle isn’t dangerous, then the jackknife powerbomb from mid 90s WWE is legal

 

[GoSouths]

A bit more on Jazz:

Meanwhile, Webster said the situation with Jazz Tevaga’s hamstring may not be as bad as initially feared.

The middle forward posted on social media he thought his season was over after picking up another injury at the team’s captain’s run on Thursday.

However, Webster said they will have further details about his hamstring soon.

“Scans will tell us more, but we don’t think the season is over. We think it’s positive news,” Webster said.

“He won’t play next week, that’s for sure. Once we get through the next couple of days we’ll know more.”

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

 

[ZEROMISSTACKLES]

That’s over complicating a simple enough solution

Treat it the same way that you treat a kicker on the last, you can make contact, but it has to be a proper tackling/wrapping motion that doesn’t put the player into a dangerous position. It’s all about being in control of the tackle

If we just consider that landing on your back means the tackle isn’t dangerous, then the jackknife powerbomb from mid 90s WWE is legal

You mean like bring them down from the air carefully right? Yeah that's practical and more importantly - safe.

I'm sure the reffs will look into that law and it'll be interesting to see if they make any changes.

 

[Philip_Smith007]

You mean like bring them down from the air carefully right? Yeah that's practical and more importantly - safe.

I'm sure the reffs will look into that law and it'll be interesting to see if they make any changes.

It will be hard to tackle anyone in the air safely. Unless both players are standing near still and there is no momentum or rotational forces in involved.

 

[Philip_Smith007]

Bunty only got a fine for his late shot.
Seems a bit light, obviously not the flavour of the month with NRL hitting player after ball has left.