Patience in Attack

  • 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.

pjayz

הנשרים ישרור בעוד שנתיים מיום הנשרים
I've noticed that in the last 4 weeks we haven't been overly patient in attack. I would say that Cherry and Jamie are the two who have fallen into this trap a bit - being a little kick-happy. Often we will make a break on 1st or 2nd tackle and try and be too fancy with a kick rather than tacking the tackle, playing the ball and rolling through the broken defensive line. We seem a little unstructured and are playing rush-of-blood type footy.

When we were on our longest wining streak we found the balance between chancing our arm and being patient - I think we have lost that a touch and got away with it against some of the lower lights, but the stronger teams will take advantage of that.

We are first, so we can't be doing too much wrong, but there is always room to improve and I think this is it - patience. Thoughts?
 
Yes it does seem that we are going for the spectacular kick plays rather than being patient. Too many attempted trick shots instead of worked set plays after a break. In saying that I'm disappointed that this thread hasn't mentioned some players hating the coach, other players, club administration & wanting releases to join the Wyong Roos.
 
I don't think Jamie has been kick happy. DCE has a bit though. Kicking on the first or second got us a try on the weekend but it cost us 2 sets too. Pretty sure he did it last week against Souths too.
 
Yeah I agree, but it is good to be trying a few things now while warming up to the finals.

An interesting stat from the titans game is that we had 8 line breaks for only 2 tries. Ordinarily Manly would convert more of these line breaks to 4 pointers.

I put it down to the reshuffled backline, with Hiku and Jamie split up for that game, and Jorge just coming back into match fitness.
 
mickqld said:
In saying that I'm disappointed that this thread hasn't mentioned some players hating the coach, other players, club administration & wanting releases to join the Wyong Roos.

Sorry, forgot to mention that Jamie isn't talking to Lyon and Daly can't stand both Cherry and Evans.

Oh and Toovey's uncle's daughter's cousin (also named Geoff funnily enough) isn't talking to him...which is probably a good thing cause that's just insane.
 
I really enjoyed the kick on tackle 1 from the scrum vs Souths. Brett won the race to the ball, and it would have been a try if the bounce wasn't so high. It gained 30-40 metres so a good play, if a little risky.
 
Hiku missed 8 tackles in the GC game and made 6 tackles for 14 attempts.

That's more of a worry than any lack of patience in attack. Skivvy would have made all the difference in this game. Skivvy plays and we not only have better defence, but we convert more of the opportunities and we win comfortably.
 
pjayz said:
Often we will make a break on 1st or 2nd tackle and try and be too fancy with a kick rather than tacking the tackle, playing the ball and rolling through the broken defensive line.

On Sunday, Foz did break the line, got tackled, played the ball, and got penalised for it. Maybe that's why they're opting for the kick instead.
 
Couple of times in that Titans game where Cherry should have passed instead of kicked, including the try that resulted from a kick.
 
Stevo said:
I don't think Jamie has been kick happy. DCE has a bit though. Kicking on the first or second got us a try on the weekend but it cost us 2 sets too. Pretty sure he did it last week against Souths too.

DCE would've gone close to scoring on the last play of the match if he wasn't tackled without the ball.
Would've been interesting to see what the ref would've done if there was longer to go in the match, surely it was a professional foul and a sin bin but being the last 10 secs who cares I suppose.

Got no probs with them kicking early, I'd rather they back themselves with the best backline in the comp.
 
mosto said:
pjayz said:
Often we will make a break on 1st or 2nd tackle and try and be too fancy with a kick rather than tacking the tackle, playing the ball and rolling through the broken defensive line.

On Sunday, Foz did break the line, got tackled, played the ball, and got penalised for it. Maybe that's why they're opting for the kick instead.

That decision was beyond the pale. What a joke. If a player doesn't hear "held" and plays on the refs now call him back to play it.

Foz clearly heard "held" and played it accordingly. Gould pointed out that the ref said "not held" and Foz didn't hear the "not" bit.

A penalty in that situation was incredibly harsh, and most likely cost us a try on that set.

In any case is there a rule against kicking the ball backwards to a support player? Because as he wasn't held, that is precisely what Foz did - heeled it backwards to a player behind him.
 
According to Wally, it is lawfull to play the ball back at any time and Gus agreed. Gus also said that the Referee has to have a new single word directive, to differentiate between 'play on' and 'play the ball'. As The Player only hears the first word of the ruling :cool:

The Foz penalty was wrong according to the rules, as well as how they have been refereeing all year :mad:
 
G'day all,If you're being really technical surely if you play the ball before being called held wouldn't the first offence be for a knock on because you put the ball down in front of you, unless you don't take your hand off it before you place your foot on it and simultaneously roll it back which would then be a kick.And if you haven't been tackled how can it be an illegal play the ball?Has there been an official explanation or is there a specific law that covers this situation?
cheers mike
 
mike walker said:
G'day all,If you're being really technical surely if you play the ball before being called held wouldn't the first offence be for a knock on because you put the ball down in front of you, unless you don't take your hand off it before you place your foot on it and simultaneously roll it back which would then be a kick.And if you haven't been tackled how can it be an illegal play the ball?Has there been an official explanation or is there a specific law that covers this situation?
cheers mike

We are in the realms of "investigation" territory here Mike. Yes if his hand came off the ball it would be a knock on, so why a penalty from Maxwell and not a scrum? Kieran didn't take his hand off the ball in any case.
 
I think the appearance of no patience is more down to trying to create too much without winning the build up plays.
At times due to both a lack of energy in winning the contact, to earn a quick play the ball OR
The refs slackness in allowing non dominant defenders to lay all over the attacker, which was common in the Souths game.
When Manly win the speed in the ruck & are rolling foward there is no more unstoppable backline over the past few years, & the beauty is, though the defence know it is coming, its almost unstoppable when the option runners go through the defensive line dragging defenders inwards & Stewart takes the sweep pass creating that 3 on 2.
The patience imo can be put down to both the impact of the whistle blowers ruck interpretation & the Seaeagles being a little flat over the past few games, though it could well be argued the key players need to adapt better to the situation better also.
 
I loved the audacity of kicking on tackle 1 from a scrum-win!

As said, a better bounce and Snake may have sprinted away for a try.

The minor brain-snap by Chez, kicking to no-one on the 2nd, was a bit frustrating.

Maybe the boys weren't so much impatient, as trying a few new things as both the finals approach, and to keep the opposition 2nd-guessing that little bit more.

We NEED Skivy though!

He balances the backline in attack and defence, and makes everyone around him more eager for success.
 
SECTION 11
THE TACKLE AND PLAY-THE-BALL
Tackle player
1. A player in possession may be tackled by an
in possession opposing player or players. It is illegal to tackle or
obstruct a player who is not in possession.

When tackled:
2. A player in possession is tackled:
Grounded (a) when he is held by one or more opposing players
and the ball or the hand or arm holding the ball
comes into contact with the ground.


Upright (b) when he is held by one or more opposing players
in such a manner that he can make no further
progress and cannot part with the ball.

Succumbing (c) when, being held by an opponent, the tackled
player makes it evident that he has succumbed to
the tackle and wishes to be released in order to
play-the-ball.

Hand on player (d) when he is lying on the ground and an opponent
already grounded places a hand on him.
..
..
Verbal instructions 6.
If any doubt arises as to a tackle, the Referee should
to resolve doubt give a verbal instruction to “play on” or shout “held”
as the case may be. ((See note 6. Simultaneous Page
25).

..
..
NOTES
Simultaneous 6. If the referee calls 'HELD' and a player simultaneously continues to
run or offloads, as he has not heard the call, the referee will stop play
and send the player back to the play the ball.
http://www.nrl.com/portals/nrl/RadEditor/Documents/NRL%20Rules%20book%202013FINAL.pdf



Currently the Referees constantly yell 'Play the Ball' - NOT in the rules :cool:

Call should be HELD or PLAY ON
 

Members online

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
3 3 0 48 6
3 2 1 45 4
3 2 1 28 4
3 2 1 22 4
3 2 1 15 4
3 2 1 14 4
2 1 1 13 4
3 2 1 10 4
2 1 1 6 4
3 2 1 -3 4
3 1 2 0 2
3 1 2 -5 2
3 1 2 -15 2
3 1 2 -22 2
3 1 2 -36 2
2 0 2 -56 2
3 0 3 -64 0
Back
Top Bottom