Team vs Panthers

[Chipmunk]

It was a smart way of saying Sandow is great when he's on but inconsistent. Anyway, it's not up to Sandow whether or not he has a good game, it is up to his team mates, and more importantly, the opposition. That's why we can't afford to carry him any longer.

I thought Sandow, being young, would be able to come here and learn to play at his best or close to it every week. But it's not just about his own effort, it's always about the circumstances of the defence facing him, which is out of his (and our) control. And that's just in attack. In defence the only way to stop him being an absolute liability is to control the ball.

I was wrong about Sandow.

Sandow had his once a month decent game. To be honest I thought that if he had played against the Warriors he would have had his once in a month decent game that week instead.

Will be interesting to see if he can at least deliver something similar next week.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

The coach seems to think it's the other way around.

We know that if the coach (whose arse is on the line) was able to play Kelly instead he would have.

As for what he says during the presser, he has to say something, and he can't say anything like "Chris Sandow has huge talent but unfortunately is barely suited to the modern, ruck speed dependent game of rugby league. Any club tempted to sign (or re-sign) him doesn't just need to consider whether they can afford his asking price, but whether they can afford to carry him in their defensive line at all. It's an absolute shame, but this player who manages to poll in the top three performers whenever his team wins might not even have a place in any NRL team's top 17 after this year."

Given we are stuck with Sandow for the rest of 2015 (after which the coach might not even have a job) how could Arthur say anything detrimental to Sandow's hope and confidence? The fact is it is almost June and Sandow is still without a job beyond 2015. At least as far as we know.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

As much as it pains me to do this.... congrats on the win last night. You guys totally outplayed us in all aspects of the game. The only time we got back into the game was on the back of a string of penalties. The scoreline flattered Penrith.

Cheers mate. I thought Robert Matthews had his best game of the year as well.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Sandow had his once a month decent game. To be honest I thought that if he had played against the Warriors he would have had his once in a month decent game that week instead.

Will be interesting to see if he can at least deliver something similar next week.

If we can somehow dominate the Cowboys forwards next week (lol) I'm sure Sandow will have another blinder. At least in attack.

 

[oldmancraigy]

The coach seems to think it's the other way around.

And of course you weren't wrong about Sandow. How likely is that? You were wrong about being wrong about him, though.

But this is Pou, and two wrongs make a right. So technically he wasn't wrong at all.

 

[Gronk]

It seems that the Pauli tackle is the only thing worth talking about this morning. Merkins on MMM have been talking about it for most if their prog.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

We know that if the coach (whose arse is on the line) was able to play Kelly instead he would have.

As for what he says during the presser, he has to say something, and he can't say anything like "Chris Sandow has huge talent but unfortunately is barely suited to the modern, ruck speed dependent game of rugby league. Any club tempted to sign (or re-sign) him doesn't just need to consider whether they can afford his asking price, but whether they can afford to carry him in their defensive line at all. It's an absolute shame, but this player who manages to poll in the top three performers whenever his team wins might not even have a place in any NRL team's top 17 after this year."

Given we are stuck with Sandow for the rest of 2015 (after which the coach might not even have a job) how could Arthur say anything detrimental to Sandow's hope and confidence? The fact is it is almost June and Sandow is still without a job beyond 2015. At least as far as we know.

I get all that, and it may well be true, but what I'm getting at is that Arthur seemed to be implying that when Sandow plays well, the team plays well. And not that when the team plays well, Sandow plays well, as you are suggesting (though I think there's a lot of truth in that, too).

I thought it was just a snarky comment from a guy who'd had his hand forced and was possibly proven wrong. A lack of tact, if you like. That said, a lack of tact didn't seem to do Alex Ferguson any harm.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

But this is Pou, and two wrongs make a right. So technically he wasn't wrong at all.

:lol: Now I'm all befuddled.

 

[Twizzle]

As much as it pains me to do this.... congrats on the win last night. You guys totally outplayed us in all aspects of the game. The only time we got back into the game was on the back of a string of penalties. The scoreline flattered Penrith.

swap you Cartright for Sandow ??

 

[oldmancraigy]

It seems that the Pauli tackle is the only thing worth talking about this morning. Merkins on MMM have been talking about it for most if their prog.

Fair enough they want to chat about protecting the passer, but what do they expect? Exemption for ballplayers??

The reason every single team decks the playmaker from the blindside is because the playmaker has turned his body to pass (OR IS IT TO DUMMY??) The defender can't see the ball anymore, so needs to make that split second choice, do I deck him, or let him run? If he lets him run, then he is the biggest idiot in league when the playmaker dummies and goes right through. If he decks him milliseconds after he passes, the defender is vilified.

I find the whole thing ridiculous. Late shots should be stamped out, but when the guy turns his body away from the defence to shield the ball from sight, he not only gives himself the better chance at delivering a long and accurate pass to his outside men, he is also creating the subterfuge of a dummy, and can run the ball.

Coaches TELL their players to deck the playmaker. DO NOT LET HIM STAND if he is turning his body.

No playmaker gets decked after passing with their front to the defence, but they can't pass as far, or as accurately, or hide the ball behind their body, and so create the dummy.

If they outlaw hitting the guy after he has passed, every single playmaker needs to just turn their body sideways, and run through the line. You can no longer tackle them, or you risk suspension if they have passed it.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

The level of criticism is completely out of proportion to any offence committed. Just a very big guy hitting a little guy after he had passed. Compared to the Scott incident, it looks much more spectacular because Pauli is huge. And Soward went off. Plenty of people were prepared to give Scott the benefit of the doubt, but the incidents are very similar. And if you're going to judge a late hit, please stop watching it in slow motion, ffs!

 

[jono]

Still maintain you can't stop 110kgs of PP on a dime....what's he supposed to do, dive straight into the ground?

 

[The Colonel]

Soward went off but he was well enough to sit his head up and look around for the penalty and when he had realised they were playing on, he watched the play carry on. He has a history of diving. They took the free interchange from the report and he had a rest. It certainly didn't hinder him for the rest of the game and we don't know that the needle he reportedly had was because of the tackle or for the injury that has been keeping him out of the game for the past weeks.

Just glad we didn't have to watch the little prick playing with his cap guns.....

 

[Jake the snake]

Soward went off but he was well enough to sit his head up and look around for the penalty and when he had realised they were playing on, he watched the play carry on. He has a history of diving. They took the free interchange from the report and he had a rest. It certainly didn't hinder him for the rest of the game and we don't know that the needle he reportedly had was because of the tackle or for the injury that has been keeping him out of the game for the past weeks.

Just glad we didn't have to watch the little prick playing with his cap guns.....

Yep he's didn't look like he was in pain, when he was looking around. He is so annoying.

 

[The Colonel]

The media are playing this one up for all its worth. It wasn't high. It wasn't dangerous. It WAS late. It deserves a penalty. They scored the try as the refs did the right thing and played advantage. If the MRC penalise him for that when they took NO action against Beau Scott for tackles of a similar nature than they are kidding themselves. You can't keep changing the rules every other week.

 

[Suitman]

The media are playing this one up for all its worth. It wasn't high. It wasn't dangerous. It WAS late. It deserves a penalty. They scored the try as the refs did the right thing and played advantage. If the MRC penalise him for that when they took NO action against Beau Scott for tackles of a similar nature than they are kidding themselves. You can't keep changing the rules every other week.

But they do. If Paulo's tackle was worth 10 weeks, Hodges is at least 3 or 4, yet nothing.

Suity

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

The base penalty for Paulo's tackle was the equivalent of 5 games. The rest came because he had recently been found guilty of an almost identical tackle, had carry over points and pleaded not guilty.

Hodges was a dangerous tackle because of the effective head slam at the end, but the throw put Farah shoulder first into the ground.

 

[Suitman]

The base penalty for Paulo's tackle was the equivalent of 5 games. The rest came because he had recently been found guilty of an almost identical tackle, had carry over points and pleaded not guilty.

Hodges was a dangerous tackle because of the effective head slam at the end, but the throw put Farah shoulder first into the ground.

Maybe I'm simplifying things too much, but look at both tackles in isolation. One get 10 weeks, the other gets nothing. I know you tried to explain why, but there is an inconsistency there that just doesn't wash with me.

Suity

 

[oldmancraigy]

But they do. If Paulo's tackle was worth 10 weeks, Hodges is at least 3 or 4, yet nothing.

Suity

I thought Paulo's was way worse, but I appreciate the point you are making!

Paul landed the guy on his neck, Hodges on his shoulder, but even still, should at least be some kind of charge to Hodges right?

 

[TheFrog]

It wasn't high. It wasn't dangerous. It WAS late. It deserves a penalty.

There was no penalty. There is a case for the eight point try rule to be extended to foul play occurring during the try scoring play. Pauli under the circumstances really should have got 10 in the bin.

Something is wrong when you can take out the opposition's playmaker illegally, causing him to go off injured, and escape utterly scot-free.

Soward came back on after being strapped and needled but was out of sorts and is now looking at 3-4 weeks with a damaged AC joint.

I'd like to see Pauli Pauli charged with dangerous contact, on the grounds it was an illegal hit it and caused injury, but it probably won't happen.