Game Day: Parramatta v Manly, Saturday [Round 4, 2020]

[The Wheel]

AFB post match

Fonua Blake: Proud of efforts

Hear what Addin Fonua-Blake had to say after last night's controversial loss to the Parramatta Eels.

www.seaeagles.com.au

 

[DieHardManlyFan]

Can anyone help in explaining why the captains challenge couldn’t be used in last nights play? I don’t recall us being unsuccessful with ours during the course of the game and if it was due to us being unable to use it in that situation then doesn’t that contradict the whole point of implementing it in the first place?

 

[Dan]

Can anyone help in explaining why the captains challenge couldn’t be used in last nights play? I don’t recall us being unsuccessful with ours during the course of the game and if it was due to us being unable to use it in that situation then doesn’t that contradict the whole point of implementing it in the first place?

Can't challenge on a forward pass, just knock on/strips

 

[40 years an eagle]

If that is the case all passes would look as forward as this pass.

You are forgetting to take into account the speed of the pass which will determine the amount of forward momentum it will have.(if the pass is delivered backwards at a higher speed than the passer is running at this also changes things)

No. The 1.4m forward for every second the ball is travelling is totally unaffected by the speed the ball is moving. The speed the ball is passed at has zero effect on how far the ball will float forward. The time in the air is the only real factor.

The 1.4m mention is with the passer moving at 5kph. Tom was running a LOT faster than that so the forward momentum he was generating would propel the ball a LOT more forward than 1.4m.
You are digging yourself a deeper hole every time you say something now buddy as you do not understand the laws of physics at all.

 

[DieHardManlyFan]

Can't challenge on a forward pass, just knock on/strips

Thanks for clearing that up mate . It’s just ironic how a captain can’t challenge the play that determines the outcome of the game. Regardless proud of the comeback

 

[simon64]

Dan....Can you please add a "you're a d!ckhead" rating ?

I don't want to reveal who will get my first one.

On a separate note, we've heard very little about Brown being offside before Tom tried the round the corner pass that led to the second try just before half time. It wasn't a knock even if you ignore the fact that Brown was about 5 yards offside.

 

[Will on the hill]

Just saw an angle of the Walker try that shows clear separation before he grounds it. The refs giveth and the refs taketh away. Bottom line is they need to be better for 80min and we all know they can be.

 

[jbb/james]

The type of pass didnt help, no torpedo. It was a old fashioned floater. More suited to the short ball

Hold the ball at the ends old school, always bends the further it travels.

 

[Bring back the.... Biff?]

Court decision in Fiji not expected until later in the year, but NRL didn't suspend him and are allowing him to play in the meantime.

NRL makes decision on Maika Sivo's playing future

Maika Sivo's court case in Fiji has been adjourned until the day of the Eels' first game of the season.

www.smh.com.au

Interesting... i remember snake copping 4 games and 100k fine. Unless im mistaken

 

[Bring back the.... Biff?]

Just saw an angle of the Walker try that shows clear separation before he grounds it. The refs giveth and the refs taketh away. Bottom line is they need to be better for 80min and we all know they can be.

There is no clear separation.. he grounds it. How big is the tv u watch 🙂

 

[Bring back the.... Biff?]

Peter Sterling says there's no doubt the ball went backwards.

Do you remember last year warriors v parra and sheck scored the best try like we did to win the game and the ref called the pass forward?? I swear it was so similar to our one.

 

[Chip and Chase]

Have learnt some interesting things about physics reading this thread. Lol, some very amateur physicists posting here.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Have learnt some interesting things about physics reading this thread. Lol, some very amateur physicists posting here.

VERY

 

[Technical Coach]

No. The 1.4m forward for every second the ball is travelling is totally unaffected by the speed the ball is moving. The speed the ball is passed at has zero effect on how far the ball will float forward. The time in the air is the only real factor.

The 1.4m mention is with the passer moving at 5kph. Tom was running a LOT faster than that so the forward momentum he was generating would propel the ball a LOT more forward than 1.4m.
You are digging yourself a deeper hole every time you say something now buddy as you do not understand the laws of physics at all.

The IRB video has players running further apart at higher running speed with a faster ball passing speed and that almost has 2mtre of forward momentum, i would think the speed of the pass in the opposite direction does impact the amount of forward momentum a ball has.(balls that show a clear floating forward tend to not be at a high speed and have more time in the air to allow momentum to move the ball forward)

It also shows a ball thrown directly above ones head skywards lacking sideways movement traveled further forward momentum wise than the longer pass at speed.

I'm not digging any deeper hole, it makes no difference to my point of view on how much or how little or how wrong i am understand physics. The point is we have a linesman "on the spot" with the best view in the house and we refuse to give him the benefit of the doubt because we all feel the law of physics should take over in every judgement with a higher chance of getting it right. (without even knowing the ball speed, running speed and distance travelled numbers "on the spot" to justify a decision)

All you are doing is trying to big note yourself because you have an issue with me and working off the joy of "my aim is to dig this fool a hole" like you need some self ego stroking.

 

[40 years an eagle]

The IRB video has players running further apart at higher running speed with a faster ball passing speed and that almost has 2mtre of forward momentum, i would think the speed of the pass in the opposite direction does impact the amount of forward momentum a ball has.

It also shows a ball thrown directly above ones head skywards lacking sideways movement traveled further forward momentum wise than the longer pass at speed.

I'm not digging any deeper hole, it makes no difference to my point of view on how much or how little or how wrong i am understand physics. The point is we have a linesman "on the spot" with the best view in the house and we refuse to give him the benefit of the doubt because we all feel the law of physics should take over in every judgement with a higher chance of getting it right. (without even knowing the ball speed, running speed and distance travelled numbers "on the spot" to justify a decision)

All you are doing is trying to big note yourself because you have an issue with me and working off the joy of "my aim is to dig this fool a hole" like you need some self ego stroking.

Wow...just wow!

 

[Technical Coach]

Wow...just wow!

It's not about how correct we are understanding the physics but about not allowing the linesman who has the best view in the house to make a ruling he considers correct, we are happy to make a physics judgment with no data numbers in the moment to make a decision.

 

[Technical Coach]

I think the answer is, he supports his own opinion as fact.
But the fact is Manly we’re robbed and we don’t need TC to confirm it.

I have my own opinion about how poorly refs and linesman are treated especially in this instance where the linesman is in a perfect viewing position(better than any camera angle or Silvertails fan sitting in their cheap IKEA lounge to make a call)

In my view at best the ball is released flat(yes this still makes it legal and yes momentum will propel the ball forward) but we have a linesman in a perfect position to adjudicate so i am happy for him to make the call.

Yes i am of the opinion in this instance the ball was forward and not unhappy with the decision, it doesn't mean i am saying i am correct at all.

Just because i have a differing view not inline with the Eagles supporter base it doesn't mean i have proclaimed it as "fact".

As i have stated many times now i have given the example of wingers running in space and passing at speed back inside this is where the physics judgment should more come in to play as the refs are rarely keeping up with the play to make an on the spot decision and we know how much momentum will propel the ball forward.

In this instance last night i am happy to go with the linesman's call and back him.

 

[niccipops]

In this instance last night i am happy to go with the linesman's call and back him.

I'm sticking with Tommy and Rueben, most fans and officials.

 

[niccipops]

Just because i have a differing view not inline with the Eagles supporter base it doesn't mean i have proclaimed it as "fact".

Hey no worries.
You're very persistent with your point though.

 

[40 years an eagle]

It's not about how correct we are understanding the physics but about not allowing the linesman who has the best view in the house to make a ruling he considers correct, we are happy to make a physics judgment with no data numbers in the moment to make a decision.

Thanks for the video it shows a carbon copy of Tom's legal pass.

You and the linesman are goth geese.