What's new
By:
Advanced search…
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Who replaces Cappy?

M

Marty

Juniors
Messages
208
Big Marn said:
The second dragon no try was a ridiculous call. It seems the Letter of the Law is being upheld when common sense should prevail.
Click to expand...

Strongly disagree with you there if that was the Benji one. The whole reason there was a hole for him to run into was that hoffman had been taken out which had stopped him being able to push up in defence like he normally does. Totally right call for mine.
 
Big Marn

Big Marn

Bench
Messages
2,973
i dont think so. Hoffman did get obstructed at the time, but Marshall still had a heap of distance to get to the line and Hoffman had more than enough time to plug the gap. He chose to pitch his tent just in front of the try line rather than move further in field. The fox sport team were all unanimous that was the wrong call but they were divided on the other one. Guess if we cant agree, how is the bunker supposed to keep everyone happy. :)
 
J

jaseg

Juniors
Messages
2,274
Big Marn said:
i dont think so. Hoffman did get obstructed at the time, but Marshall still had a heap of distance to get to the line and Hoffman had more than enough time to plug the gap. He chose to pitch his tent just in front of the try line rather than move further in field. The fox sport team were all unanimous that was the wrong call but they were divided on the other one. Guess if we cant agree, how is the bunker supposed to keep everyone happy. :)
Click to expand...

Honestly, that's rubbish. He was disadvantaged by not being allowed to move up in a unified defensive line with Robson, Benji ran into the space created by that (on Robson's inside shoulder), it was obstruction. He had time to get across the field, but not to get up and plug the gap - therefore was forced to make a much harder tackle (1 on 1 close to the line) than he would have otherwise.

Were the Fox team really unanimous? Jimmy Smith (on the right) seemed to be disagreeing as much as he could without Gaz (the least objective person - and perhaps worst game analyst - on the Fox Sports team) throwing a moody and walking off set.

Honestly... Gaz was also whinging about the other one - and his argument was that it shouldn't be Matthews' responsibility as the lead runner to avoid running into the defender. He might be a former player, but he clearly doesn't understand the obstruction laws at all - his opinion on these calls carries no weight.

It's an easy one to fix: if you're a lead runner, run at the gap not the player. Simple solution, and this all becomes moot. :)

----------

edit: I see Archer came out with his public evaluation of bad decisions and said there was an error made by the bunker - in the Raiders/Panthers game, but not ours. Incidentally, it was for a wall in front of the field goal kicker - remember when we did that last year? It was legal then, but they produced a new rule against it before the start of this season.
 
Last edited:
P

Penrose Warrior

First Grade
Messages
9,491
Different kind of Rabbit said:
Word around the traps is that you've just signed Geoff Toovey for two years. Cleary was approached but he rejected the offer.
Click to expand...

Toovey has gone to great lengths a couple of times on NRL 360 to insist he was not ready for another coaching gig yet. So the odds of him suddenly changing his mind to move to a different country, and a side in as much turmoil as us...doubt it.
 
Benek

Benek

Juniors
Messages
1,974
Yeah doesn't sound likely from what I've heard from him, however he could have signed for starting next season, which gives him plenty of time to prepare.
 
Philip_Smith007

Philip_Smith007

Coach
Messages
17,779
Benek said:
Yeah doesn't sound likely from what I've heard from him, however he could have signed for starting next season, which gives him plenty of time to prepare.
Click to expand...

No idea if he has signed, but saying you don't want to do something increases the price we would have to pay to get them.
Everyone's got a price.
 
Matua

Matua

First Grade
Messages
5,258
Wow, imagine Toovey firing up at the refs after Warriors matches! It will be awesome. I think he needs to work out a deal where Watson pays all his fines out of a slush fund.

But, why on earth would Toovey want to come to a dysfunctional hell hole?
 
Iron Lion

Iron Lion

Juniors
Messages
1,216
Whoever turns around the Warriors becomes a legend, who wouldn't want that challenge?

I heard Toovey would love to coach the Warriors from a source with the NRL so wouldn't surprise me if he did come over.
 
TheDMC

TheDMC

Bench
Messages
3,419
Big Marn said:
i dont think so. Hoffman did get obstructed at the time, but Marshall still had a heap of distance to get to the line and Hoffman had more than enough time to plug the gap. He chose to pitch his tent just in front of the try line rather than move further in field. The fox sport team were all unanimous that was the wrong call but they were divided on the other one. Guess if we cant agree, how is the bunker supposed to keep everyone happy. :)
Click to expand...

I think many commentators and ex players keep missing the point.

They seem to evaluate the decision based on whether or not a defender was actually impeded from being able to potentially negate the attacking threat.

Whereas the bunker is taking out this difficult evaluation and simply deciding on whether or not a defender was illegally impeded (regardless of how likely they could negate the attacking threat).

I for one agree with the bunker interpretation as it makes things a lot simpler and teams will learn to run holes or pull up before contacting a defender if they don't have the ball. It's surely not that difficult.
 
JJ

JJ

Immortal
Messages
32,748
TheDMC said:
I think many commentators and ex players keep missing the point.

They seem to evaluate the decision based on whether or not a defender was actually impeded from being able to potentially negate the attacking threat.

Whereas the bunker is taking out this difficult evaluation and simply deciding on whether or not a defender was illegally impeded (regardless of how likely they could negate the attacking threat).

I for one agree with the bunker interpretation as it makes things a lot simpler and teams will learn to run holes or pull up before contacting a defender if they don't have the ball. It's surely not that difficult.
Click to expand...

Oh yep - that wouldn't be a first
 
JJ

JJ

Immortal
Messages
32,748
Iron Lion said:
Whoever turns around the Warriors becomes a legend, who wouldn't want that challenge?

I heard Toovey would love to coach the Warriors from a source with the NRL so wouldn't surprise me if he did come over.
Click to expand...

Will he bring Watmough, Matai and Foran?
 
Big Marn

Big Marn

Bench
Messages
2,973
TheDMC said:
I

I for one agree with the bunker interpretation as it makes things a lot simpler and teams will learn to run holes or pull up before contacting a defender if they don't have the ball. It's surely not that difficult.
Click to expand...

i dont know. not having discretion leads you down a path where you have the Jamie Lyon incident where he was basically diving to get the penalty knowing that the bunker would look at the video and see the letter of the law. I understand what you are saying where it makes it simpler, but is it better?

It seems similar to the evolution of scoring a try from 10 years ago.
It used to be that there needed to be downward pressure on a try but now all you need is to have simultaneous contact with the ball at the moment it touches the ground and that constitutes a try. A fingernail on the ball with no downward pressure still constitutes a try. Call me old fashioned but in my eyes thats not a try.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Top