POST GAME [Round 5, 2024] Broncos vs Storm

[winslow_wong]

Was Mariner hurt on the Coates try or the Howarth/Munster grubbiness? I assume the latter, although still think the former is dangerous and should be looked at.

He was holding his lower back and limping with the trainer straight after the Coates try. I remember thinking he was gonna come off at that point.

 

[Brett Da Man LeMan]

1000% disagree.

Mariner was on the ground, so as soon as Munster puts a finger on Mariner or the ball it is considered a tackle

If this is the new rule regarding what's held / tackled and what isn't, what's stopping attacking teams running up to near the defence line, diving on the ground before contact, then immediately jumping up and playing it as if they were tackled?
- Take hit up
- Dive at the feet before the defensive line
- Immediately get up and try to play it. You'll either get a quick play the ball with the whole defensive line offside, or get a 6 again for the defenders trying to effect a tackle.


Storm were not held properly a few times, they'd get up and appear to play on, get tackled by a bronc and get awarded a 6 again, is the above what they were doing?

 

[Xzei]

If this is the new rule regarding what's held / tackled and what isn't, what's stopping attacking teams running up to near the defence line, diving on the ground before contact, then immediately jumping up and playing it as if they were tackled?
- Take hit up
- Dive at the feet before the defensive line
- Immediately get up and try to play it. You'll either get a quick play the ball with the whole defensive line offside, or get a 6 again for the defenders trying to effect a tackle.


Storm were not held properly a few times, they'd get up and appear to play on, get tackled by a bronc and get awarded a 6 again, is the above what they were doing?

id hardly say its new been the way it was ruled on munster for a while 'put a hand on a downed player including the ball tackle is complete'

in your example above the ref needs to call held if a player doesnt touch the guy with the ball before he can play it,dont get where the confusion is?

side note only a minor hamstring strain/tear for arey?

 

[NSW stables]

If this is the new rule regarding what's held / tackled and what isn't, what's stopping attacking teams running up to near the defence line, diving on the ground before contact, then immediately jumping up and playing it as if they were tackled?
- Take hit up
- Dive at the feet before the defensive line
- Immediately get up and try to play it. You'll either get a quick play the ball with the whole defensive line offside, or get a 6 again for the defenders trying to effect a tackle.


Storm were not held properly a few times, they'd get up and appear to play on, get tackled by a bronc and get awarded a 6 again, is the above what they were doing?

That would be a 'surrender' tackle and the defender (technically) given more time to get off (although this is rarely permitted anymore).

Penrith largely use a similar strategy. If you look at their back 5. After first contact with the line, if they do not break through, they bump and then find the ground on their hands and knees, ready to get a quick play the ball. Look at most of Edward's runs. He does not make many line breaks, but he sets up (on the kick return) and finishes the sets (usually takes the 5th tackle hit up which gives cleary more time to kick).

 

[Foordy]

If this is the new rule regarding what's held / tackled and what isn't, what's stopping attacking teams running up to near the defence line, diving on the ground before contact, then immediately jumping up and playing it as if they were tackled?
- Take hit up
- Dive at the feet before the defensive line
- Immediately get up and try to play it. You'll either get a quick play the ball with the whole defensive line offside, or get a 6 again for the defenders trying to effect a tackle.


Storm were not held properly a few times, they'd get up and appear to play on, get tackled by a bronc and get awarded a 6 again, is the above what they were doing?

Because the defending players could lie on the player on the ground for longer, preventing a quick play the ball ... That's what a surrender tackle is

 

[Foordy]

This was seriously impressive in only 24 minutes

 

[lynx000]

My random thoughts on the game:

1. **** the storm.

2. The Storm in my view continually get the rub of the green on contentious 6 again calls, the one that instantly comes to mind is the Harry Grant/Walters one.

3. The other thing that is really annoying is the extent to which they steal metres after the tackle is effected by walking forward, often away from the mark as well, and then a marker in the correct position has a 6 again awarded against them. One who seems to do this regularly if not all of the time is Kamikamica.

4. Another costly loss by us where we have thrown away a game we should have won. I hope this loss does not come back to bite us.

5. A fantastic effort against to all intents a full-strength Storm away, whilst we had significant outs. Very proud of the effort. An earlier poster said we no longer fear the Storm, and I think that is right. I hope all of our players are fit and we hose them when they come up here.

6. The coaching staff really have to do some significant work on that Mam/Cobbo edge in defence. At least two tries straight through that area on Thursday night.

7. Baker - turn in your front rower's card son, that was pathetic allowing a reserve half to score on a crash ball on our line. Bar for the injuries you deserve an extended stint back in Q-Cup. Riki, not much better, that was such pathetic defence.

8. People have been saying it for some time, but just calm the farm and stop being so frantic in attack. If we had been calmer and more methodical we get those two additional tries.

9. I thought Billy was quite serviceable in a fill-in role in the halves in the second half. He does have genuine utility value for this side.

10. Until we properly drill on short drop-outs, just kick them long, or go for a driving kick straight towards the side line, you more chance of creating an error from that . Every training session now there should be a half hour session tacked on where all they do is drill taking and receiving short drop outs with players being nominated for specific roles.

11. **** the Storm.

I have added an edit to this. If were to be looking to bolster back row stocks down the track, we could do a lot worse than Curran from the Bulldogs. I have been watching him closely and he has been impressive this season. He looks like a throwback to the old style 70=80's forward and he seems to have a bit of mongrel in him which we are sadly lacking since Flegler left.

 

[Brett Da Man LeMan]

Because the defending players could lie on the player on the ground for longer, preventing a quick play the ball ... That's what a surrender tackle is

That would be a 'surrender' tackle and the defender (technically) given more time to get off (although this is rarely permitted anymore).

Penrith largely use a similar strategy. If you look at their back 5. After first contact with the line, if they do not break through, they bump and then find the ground on their hands and knees, ready to get a quick play the ball. Look at most of Edward's runs. He does not make many line breaks, but he sets up (on the kick return) and finishes the sets (usually takes the 5th tackle hit up which gives cleary more time to kick).

But if they shot up before they could be laid all over and attempted to play the ball, or made a big deal of being inferred with like Grant was doing thursday night, then you'd nearly force the ref's hand in giving a 6 again, or ensure a quick play the ball.
It just seems exploitable is what I mean, seems like there is room for conniving teams to get an advantage.
There was an instance last week in the warriors (I think) game where the kick receiver just laid on the ground while capewell stood over him without touching him waiting for him to get up or move so he could effect a tackle, but the guy just got up and played it and it was play on. That's the kinda thing I mean, but more in general play.

 

[BroncsFan]

But if they shot up before they could be laid all over and attempted to play the ball, or made a big deal of being inferred with like Grant was doing thursday night, then you'd nearly force the ref's hand in giving a 6 again, or ensure a quick play the ball.
It just seems exploitable is what I mean, seems like there is room for conniving teams to get an advantage.
There was an instance last week in the warriors (I think) game where the kick receiver just laid on the ground while capewell stood over him without touching him waiting for him to get up or move so he could effect a tackle, but the guy just got up and played it and it was play on. That's the kinda thing I mean, but more in general play.

Teams basically do this already... watch the sharks and especially McInnes... they run low to the ground and effectively make contact with the defender themselves before diving to the ground to ensure they're on their front and ready for a quick ptb.

It's pretty much touch football and is how some teams get down the field

 

[winslow_wong]

My random thoughts on the game:

1. **** the storm.

2. The Storm in my view continually get the rub of the green on contentious 6 again calls, the one that instantly comes to mind is the Harry Grant/Walters one.

3. The other thing that is really annoying is the extent to which they steal metres after the tackle is effected by walking forward, often away from the mark as well, and then a marker in the correct position has a 6 again awarded against them. One who seems to do this regularly if not all of the time is Kamikamica.

4. Another costly loss by us where we have thrown away a game we should have won. I hope this loss does not come back to bite us.

5. A fantastic effort against to all intents a full-strength Storm away, whilst we had significant outs. Very proud of the effort. An earlier poster said we no longer fear the Storm, and I think that is right. I hope all of our players are fit and we hose them when they come up here.

6. The coaching staff really have to do some significant work on that Mam/Cobbo edge in defence. At least two tries straight through that area on Thursday night.

7. Baker - turn in your front rower's card son, that was pathetic allowing a reserve half to score on a crash ball on our line. Bar for the injuries you deserve an extended stint back in Q-Cup. Riki, not much better, that was such pathetic defence.

8. People have been saying it for some time, but just calm the farm and stop being so frantic in attack. If we had been calmer and more methodical we get those two additional tries.

9. I thought Billy was quite serviceable in a fill-in role in the halves in the second half. He does have genuine utility value for this side.

10. Until we properly drill on short drop-outs, just kick them long, or go for a driving kick straight towards the side line, you more chance of creating an error from that . Every training session now there should be a half hour session tacked on where all they do is drill taking and receiving short drop outs with players being nominated for specific roles.

11. **** the Storm.

I have added an edit to this. If were to be looking to bolster back row stocks down the track, we could do a lot worse than Curran from the Bulldogs. I have been watching him closely and he has been impressive this season. He looks like a throwback to the old style 70=80's forward and he seems to have a bit of mongrel in him which we are sadly lacking since Flegler left.

12. **** the storm

 

[Foordy]

There was an instance last week in the warriors (I think) game where the kick receiver just laid on the ground while capewell stood over him waiting for him to get up or move so he could effect a tackle without touching him, but the guy just got up and played it and it was play on. That's the kinda thing I mean, but more in general play.

Surprise surprise an NRL ref either doesn't know the rules or simply applies them arbitrarily... Because in this situation if an attacking player plays the ball without a hand being placed on him (so no tackle has been effected), then that would be a penalty to the defending team for a voluntary tackle.

 

[BroncsFan]

Surprise surprise an NRL ref either doesn't know the rules or simply applies them arbitrarily... Because in this situation if an attacking player plays the ball without a hand being placed on him (so no tackle has been effected), then that would be a penalty to the defending team for a voluntary tackle.

Which is exactly what happened in the titans vs broncos game last year.

Titans winger got up and started playing the ball after a kick even though he was never touched... Reynolds effected the tackle whilst he was trying to play it causing an error.

The ref actually called it correct only for titans to challenge and then lose their challenge in the process... quite funny how much the titans butchered that whole situation.

 

[BroncsFan]

There was an instance last week in the warriors (I think) game where the kick receiver just laid on the ground while capewell stood over him without touching him waiting for him to get up or move so he could effect a tackle, but the guy just got up and played it and it was play on. That's the kinda thing I mean, but more in general play.

In that instance I think the ref had called held... incorrectly. Capewell threw his hands out in bewilderment, but the ball can be played because the ref called held.

If they try to just play the ball without being called held it's usually an error... or sometimes they get called back with a time off?? ... I'm not sure it's usually pretty rare. If they look to play it without being tackled the ref could be yelling "play on", which means not tackled... as long as the ball doesn't leave their hands it's all good and they can keep running or be tackled.

Either way it's illegal and doesn't usually result in a quick ptb when it happens... that's why ball runners initiate contact, ala touch football, and then dive to their front for the quick ptb. They've been touched and taken to ground so the tackle is effected, but the defender isn't really in control of the situation and concedes a quick ptb.

 

[Brett Da Man LeMan]

In that instance I think the ref had called held... incorrectly. Capewell threw his hands out in bewilderment, but the ball can be played because the ref called held.

If they try to just play the ball without being called held it's usually an error... or sometimes they get called back with a time off?? ... I'm not sure it's usually pretty rare. If they look to play it without being tackled the ref could be yelling "play on", which means not tackled... as long as the ball doesn't leave their hands it's all good and they can keep running or be tackled.

Either way it's illegal and doesn't usually result in a quick ptb when it happens... that's why ball runners initiate contact, ala touch football, and then dive to their front for the quick ptb. They've been touched and taken to ground so the tackle is effected, but the defender isn't really in control of the situation and concedes a quick ptb.

Good points. I now want to watch back all those dodgy 6 agains Grant created and listen out for a held call to see if the set restart was justified or a kleinism.

**** 6 agains. They seem to be more of a momentum swinger and a game changer than penalties while being 200 times more randomly awarded. The most it should be imo is maybe 1 or 2 more tackles.

 

[Brett Da Man LeMan]

I just watched the one with 6:20 to go in the first half, grant gets out of smoothies tackle, gets up to run, hethrington grabs him and pulls him to his knees, grant steps up to continue running and hetho completes the tackle , at no point can you hear Klein called held, but Grant puts on a big show and gets the restart.
Even vossy in commentary says he "gave as good as he got".

 

[Aldo]

I fucken hate Grant. He's turned into a really unlikable fuckwit.

 

[BroncsFan]

I just watched the one with 6:20 to go in the first half, grant gets out of smoothies tackle, gets up to run, hethrington grabs him and pulls him to his knees, grant steps up to continue running and hetho completes the tackle , at no point can you hear Klein called held, but Grant puts on a big show and gets the restart.
Even vossy in commentary says he "gave as good as he got".

Yep that one should've been called a surrender, because Harry is on his hands and knees basically the whole time, but somehow Klown comes out of it with a six again to Harry.

He's fucking useless and allows himself to be dictated to by the players, because he's weak as piss.

 

[Big Del]

Defending wingers will need to be just as violent back towards him then... can't just let him have free reign to make those catches every time it goes up.

If I'm an opposition winger I'm looking to just go hard into the contact whilst 'contesting' the ball... if you get him hard enough it will throw him off and his bat backs will be misdirected or knocked on... but he'll probably be higher and touching it first.

NRL have shown that they give zero ***** what happens if someone has their eyes on the ball.

Two things .
#1 Mariner didn`t jump and let Coates launch early .Then use him as a step ladder . If he jumped Coates would have found it a lot harder to catch the ball .
#2 Staggs strolled across and watched Coates leap , then tried to stop him grounding the ball . He should have been there contesting or impeding Coates run . 1% er type shit ...

The Storm set that up perfectly though . They isolated Mariner . But I do think Staggs could have done more .