Rhyno
First Grade
- Messages
- 9,318
You're legitimately f**ked in the head. How do you see any of the game whilst posting every minute???
Probably the same way you spam up every game day thread
You're legitimately f**ked in the head. How do you see any of the game whilst posting every minute???
How so? Lots of players in the competition do that. For me, its not a big issue. In any case, you need to place the ball on the ground in order to play it at some point. What the real issue was that he was blatantly interfered with, which caused him to lose it. However, I do think there were other occasions in the game where he was found wanting with his hands. It seems to be the achilies heel of both him and his brothers - they all drop the ball too much!Sam burgess has a bad habit of placing the ball on the ground to prop himself up after a hit-up, once you do that you leave yourself open to get called a knock-on even if there's sone interference from defenders (as long as the defenders don't go over the top with it)
How so? Lots of players in the competition do that. For me, its not a big issue. In any case, you need to place the ball on the ground in order to play it at some point. What the real issue was that he was blatantly interfered with, which caused him to lose it. However, I do think there were other occasions in the game where he was found wanting with his hands. It seems to be the achilies heel of both him and his brothers - they all drop the ball too much!
How so? Lots of players in the competition do that. For me, its not a big issue. In any case, you need to place the ball on the ground in order to play it at some point. What the real issue was that he was blatantly interfered with, which caused him to lose it. However, I do think there were other occasions in the game where he was found wanting with his hands. It seems to be the achilies heel of both him and his brothers - they all drop the ball too much!
Generally, whenever we play badly I'm always the first to admit so but I think tonight was a case where we can blame the referees for what was another diabolical performance. I thought the Ashley Taylor try on the verge of half time was clearly the result of a Titans player knocking the ball out of Greg Inglis' hands. Moreover, I don't know what Sam Burgess did to them but the referees certainly had it in for tonight. For some reason, the referees seemed to miss him getting interfered while he was playing the ball when we were 18-10 behind and ruled that he knocked the ball on. The Titans subsequently scored and the decision changed the game. I thought we did well to get back into it and were lucky to lose in golden point. The obvious talking point is going to be the Adam Reynolds disallowed field goal, so I will address that before I break down our performance tonight. There are two massive problem that I have with the way that it was handled. Firstly, since when is a referee allowed to award a decision and then go back and change it? The referee blew for a field goal and by the letter of the law it should have stuck. Yes, one of the chasers was interfered with but the referee awarded it and I think that based on officiating policies, it should have stuck. Secondly, how on earth did the bunker manage to miss all those Titans chasers who were offside before the ball was kicked? As is my understanding, we always play the first infringement and the first infringement was the Titans chasers clearly offside. Therefore, either the field goal should have stuck or it should have been a penalty close to the goal posts within easy kicking range for Adam Reynolds. Based on that logic and reasoning, Souths should have won the game.
Onto the performance now, and once again we continued to do what we've done all season and make things difficult for ourselves through poor execution and soft defence. I mean Ryan James' should not have been allowed to score his first try under any circumstances; that was just soft. While the second try was a refereeing blunder, there were no excuses for Tyrone Roberts' effort and Ryan James' second try; they were just soft tries that came about through poor reads and not wrapping up the ball carrier. In saying that, it seems to take bad calls or poor mistakes on our part to spark us into life because as soon as the Titans scored their third, everything changed for the better and we sprung into life. If one player in our squad epitomises this lackluster sort of performance, it is Cameron McInnes; in the first half he was absolutely woeful and everything was so slow and laboured. However, one we are 18-0 down, he starts to control the game, speed things up and looks to involve other players. This cannot go on; we need to get off to better starts or we won't be playing finals football.
What impressed me in the second half in particular was our line speed and aggression in defence - why we can't do that at the beginning of games I will never know. I was really pleased with our forwards, particularly Nathan Brown. Despite him kicking someone in the head and costing us the game through his needless obstruction, his aggression can win us games. What really bothers me is that Madge seems to have him and Tom Burgess off the field at the same time; that for me is a big no no. Similarly, Paul Carter came alive and Sam Burgess had a strong game too despite a series of handling errors.
In terms of attack, I think both Cody Walker and Greg Inglis on that left hand edge can really cause havoc. Walker, in particular, when he runs the ball is a real handful and was involved in almost all of the good work that we did with the football in his hands. In saying that, what really helped us was that we started offloading the ball a bit more which allowed us to create second phase play. While I'm not a fan of it, I think controlled offloading (if there is such a thing) could work to our advantage as we saw tonight. Honorable mentions go out to Bryson Goodwin, who continues to impress and never lets the team down, and Greg Inglis, who I thought really came alive in the second half. Alex Johnston was also very elusive and made valuable metres, which eased a lot of pressure off our forwards.
The position that Greg Inglis plays is going to be a talking point. I personally think it is still better to play him at five-eight and the move him into the centres in the last 20 minutes of games, with Luke Keary moving to five-eight. My reasoning for this is that you want to maximise Greg Inglis' involvement and by playing him at centre from the onset, you are limiting his impact to one side of the field. He by no means played badly in the first half and I think what transpired in the first halve was more a symptom of poor execution from other players rather than team selection. Moreover, Keary come on at the back end of the first half for Kyle Turner and created very little. I was actually unsure of what position Keary was playing as he seemed to be popping up all over the place. Nevertheless, I would personally move Inglis out into the centres late in the game when he can run at tired defenders.
Overall, I thought this was a game that we should never have lost and will probably end up kicking ourselves over, particularly given how well we played in the second half. The Titans are a rabble and we should have beaten them easily. Even in the first half we managed to create half a dozen chances despite the litany of errors that we made. I think we have a right to feel aggrieved over the refereeing but in the end we can only blame ourselves because if we didn't let in such soft tries we would have won easily.
How so? Lots of players in the competition do that. For me, its not a big issue. In any case, you need to place the ball on the ground in order to play it at some point. What the real issue was that he was blatantly interfered with, which caused him to lose it. However, I do think there were other occasions in the game where he was found wanting with his hands. It seems to be the achilies heel of both him and his brothers - they all drop the ball too much!
I think what you are saying generally makes for a safer play the ball but at the expense of speed. The speed of the ruck is everything as you can get the opposing team on the back foot and put them under pressure with quick play the balls. So what we need to accept is that these unorthodox methods of playing the ball are part of life now.Most players place there free arm on the ground first, start propping themselves up then place the ball for a quick play the ball. Technically you are supposed to rise with the ball then place it to play it but because refs are looking for a quicker play the ball they allow sone discretion. But when you try prop yourself up from the ball you lose that discretion and any bobble will usually be blamed on the man playing the ball
I think what you are saying generally makes for a safer play the ball but at the expense of speed. The speed of the ruck is everything as you can get the opposing team on the back foot and put them under pressure with quick play the balls. So what we need to accept is that these unorthodox methods of playing the ball are part of life now.
Generally, whenever we play badly I'm always the first to admit so but I think tonight was a case where we can blame the referees for what was another diabolical performance. I thought the Ashley Taylor try on the verge of half time was clearly the result of a Titans player knocking the ball out of Greg Inglis' hands. Moreover, I don't know what Sam Burgess did to them but the referees certainly had it in for tonight.
Since when do referees not give much leniency? Gosh these days if you brush the ball with your finger nail your penalised for "hands on the ball," at least when we are defending. I hate blaming referees but we seem to be getting the rough end of the stick when it comes to ruck penalties and refereeing decision in general this season.Plenty of players get fast play the balls without propping themselves up from the ball. It's slightly quicker but very risky as the slightest touch from a defender causes a bobble of the ball and the refs don't give much leniency.
Since when do referees not give much leniency? Gosh these days if you brush the ball with your finger nail your penalised for "hands on the ball," at least when we are defending. I hate blaming referees but we seem to be getting the rough end of the stick when it comes to ruck penalties and refereeing decision in general this season.
No it went forward and bounced backwards. That is a knock on; you always play the initial movement of the ball.Well if they did knock it out, it went back - play on.
Sam and his brothers need to cut out the errors. We can't carry them like in 14.
The Titans were all over us in the first half and they made metres at will.
Wasn't till we were nearly out of it at 18-nil we started playing.
Why should you lose leniency based on that? There is still an inherent contradiction. Basically what you are implying is that if you play the ball in a manner that pleases the referees but the defender brushes the ball with the nail on his little finger, he is going to get penalised where as if you play the ball in a Burgess-eque manner and the ball gets knocked out or the player interfered with, its knock on? Some how that does not seem fair. The referees just need to open their eyes, that's all.Because when you place the ball first and push youself up from there you lose all leniency.
No it went forward and bounced backwards. That is a knock on; you always play the initial movement of the ball.
I think the Titans 'dominance' was more down to us making bad errors, lacking polish and poor goal line defence. In saying that, as I said in my post on the other page, we need to stop waiting until we are like 18-0 down before we start playing football.
Why should you lose leniency based on that? There is still an inherent contradiction. Basically what you are implying is that if you play the ball in a manner that pleases the referees but the defender brushes the ball with the nail on his little finger, he is going to get penalised where as if you play the ball in a Burgess-eque manner and the ball gets knocked out or the player interfered with, its knock on? Some how that does not seem fair. The referees just need to open their eyes, that's all.
Why should you lose leniency based on that? There is still an inherent contradiction. Basically what you are implying is that if you play the ball in a manner that pleases the referees but the defender brushes the ball with the nail on his little finger, he is going to get penalised where as if you play the ball in a Burgess-eque manner and the ball gets knocked out or the player interfered with, its knock on? Some how that does not seem fair. The referees just need to open their eyes, that's all.
Because most play the balls involve a player at least making an attempt or starting the motions of getting up before they place the ball, the burgess style of play the ball ( and he's not the only one who gets pinged for it) involves players placing the ball and pushing themselves up from there. It's actually the incorrect way of playing the ball (because you are actually supposed to rise with the ball before playing it) so when something goes wrong with that style of play the ball the blame usually goes to the attacking player (unless the defenders are way over the top with their actions). The dylan walker play the ball in origin shows that some of the onus has to be on the man playing the ball, and when you are using an incorrect technique to play the ball (not at least attempting to rise with the ball) then you are setting yourself up for the blame