Overcoming adversity

  • We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.

Kevinward777

First Grader
This for mine is the biggest difference Des has brought to the side this season. On so many occasions already we have seen the boys dig in and push their way through BS calls and momentum swings.

Even in 2017, we often weren’t capable of doing that. Great coach and mentor is Dessie. You never hear him making excuses.
 
The team does seem a lot more composed under Des. For example, we aren't seeing Jake Trbojevic throwing mini tantrums every time the opposition score or there is a penalty blown against us like he has done in previous years.

One question I have regarding something that happened yesterday. When Brimson's try was disallowed because of the obstruction to DCE.....why was there a scrum with the Tits having the feed? Isn't obstruction a penalty?

Although we ended up winning by 18, I don't think Des was too happy that we seemed to go into cruise control in the second half.
 
Sadly most adversity that teams experience seems to come from very poor refereeing decisions that often come in waves. It not just happening to us either. The refereeing in Newcastle was IMO terrible. Whilst I thought the Broncs winning was better for us I started wanting Newcastle to win because I thought they were being hard done by.
 
The team copes much better when key decisions go against them, in the ten minutes that Sirro was binned DCE managed the game very well and we did not suffer as a result. I am still baffled as to why Sirro was binned,!
try understanding the sin bin in the knights v donkeys game, but since it was against the knights i don't really care!
 
The refs went back to the first breakdown of play (Custs foward pass).
Thus the scrum with Titans feed.

That's fair enough, but how many times have we seen penalties cancel out things like a forward pass or a knock on?

Obstruction is obstruction and that is a penalty. All it did in our case though was see a GC try disallowed.

Just on Siro's sin-bin, the NRL seem to have told the refs that tackles around the head are a sin-bin offence. Siro did get Kelly high, and later we saw a Knights player also binned for his arms coming into contact with the head. The problem here is that if the NRL are going to go that way, we're going to see more players in the bin than on the field. Of course, we all know that consistency is overrated so it probably won't happen that way. But neither incident yesterday was worthy of a 10 minute break for either player.

Funny how the use of the sin-bin for even the softest of high tackles has come in the same week where the major media headline was about rugby league players having brain injuries. While I do agree that head high shots shouldn't happen and should be punished accordingly, to me it looks like another in the ever growing list of knee jerk reactions by the current NRL administration.
 
The refs went back to the first breakdown of play (Custs foward pass).
Thus the scrum with Titans feed.
On the other hand you could argue that the Tits gained an advantage from the forward pass from Cust, that is why the ref allowed play to continue in the first place. But for the Tit's indiscretion they would have been awarded a try. So really it should have been a penalty to Manly.
 
That's fair enough, but how many times have we seen penalties cancel out things like a forward pass or a knock on?

Obstruction is obstruction and that is a penalty. All it did in our case though was see a GC try disallowed.

Just on Siro's sin-bin, the NRL seem to have told the refs that tackles around the head are a sin-bin offence. Siro did get Kelly high, and later we saw a Knights player also binned for his arms coming into contact with the head. The problem here is that if the NRL are going to go that way, we're going to see more players in the bin than on the field. Of course, we all know that consistency is overrated so it probably won't happen that way. But neither incident yesterday was worthy of a 10 minute break for either player.

Funny how the use of the sin-bin for even the softest of high tackles has come in the same week where the major media headline was about rugby league players having brain injuries. While I do agree that head high shots shouldn't happen and should be punished accordingly, to me it looks like another in the ever growing list of knee jerk reactions by the current NRL administration.
Yep so predictable. Everytime there's a major negative headline about something then we get the over reaction from rdfs and yes always a Manly player cops it. Never a purple scum, rorter or donkey player
 
On the other hand you could argue that the Tits gained an advantage from the forward pass from Cust, that is why the ref allowed play to continue in the first place. But for the Tit's indiscretion they would have been awarded a try. So really it should have been a penalty to Manly.

There was a matter of literally 2 seconds between the forward pass and the "obstruction", with no passing exchange between Titans players.
Therefore there was no advantage gained to the Titans after our initial foward pass.
 
There was a matter of literally 2 seconds between the forward pass and the "obstruction", with no passing exchange between Titans players.
Therefore there was no advantage gained to the Titans after our initial foward pass.
Wasn't the advantage gained by a potential try 60m further downfield? It's not that there was a knock on or another error in the play by the tits following the forward pass, it was a penalty worthy offence/ foul play that they committed. Otherwise it was a try. Athe end of the day it's a discretionary ruling by the referee. I would have called a penalty. No bias there.
 
Whilst a couple of you more knowlwdgeable fellows are discussing the rules ... can one of you enlighten me on the following ... in the Easts game ... a forward was about 5 metres out, wrestingly forward with 2 defenders all over him ... he attempts to off load ... the ball travels 6 inches backwards into a defnders stomach and the forwadr regathers cleanly .... the play was called up and the feed went to the defending side .... ?/ ... how in the name of GreenTurds ballsack was that anything but play on ..??
 
Whilst a couple of you more knowlwdgeable fellows are discussing the rules ... can one of you enlighten me on the following ... in the Easts game ... a forward was about 5 metres out, wrestingly forward with 2 defenders all over him ... he attempts to off load ... the ball travels 6 inches backwards into a defnders stomach and the forwadr regathers cleanly .... the play was called up and the feed went to the defending side .... ?/ ... how in the name of GreenTurds ballsack was that anything but play on ..??
Was Cam Smith refereeing that game?
 

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
5 4 1 23 10
5 4 1 14 10
6 4 2 48 8
6 4 2 28 8
5 3 2 25 8
5 3 2 14 8
6 3 2 38 7
6 3 2 21 7
6 3 3 37 6
6 3 3 16 6
6 3 3 -13 6
5 2 3 -15 6
6 3 3 -36 6
6 2 4 -5 4
6 2 4 -7 4
5 0 5 -86 2
6 1 5 -102 2
Back
Top Bottom