What about the penalty count???

User avatar
Yossarian
Member
Member
Posts: 9667
Joined: Sat 11 Jul, 2009 7:46 pm
Location: Central Coast

Re: What about the penalty count???

Post by Yossarian » Mon 19 Mar, 2018 11:37 am

NT Tiger wrote:
Mon 19 Mar, 2018 11:11 am
innsaneink wrote:
Mon 19 Mar, 2018 10:46 am
It looked like they got lost in the bunker.... FFing and Rewinding nonsensically... Just lost.
Don't think they were looking for any reasons to deny
I agree. It looked like they couldn't find where they were on the sequence.
Yeah they dismissed the obstruction pretty quick and okayed Brooks getting possession just as quick and then requested grounding which took a while.


User avatar
innsaneink
Member
Member
Posts: 28959
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 9:49 pm
Location: ...ahead of you....

Post by innsaneink » Mon 19 Mar, 2018 11:41 am

Balmain Boy wrote:
Mon 19 Mar, 2018 11:11 am
That sin binning was ridiculous. Matulino didn't do anything wrong. Just the rich clubs getting the calls from refs once again.
Someone needs to make a GIF of Smyths shameful dive.
Typical cheating tactics from him playing outside the spirit of the game.
He needs to be shamed and highlited on google ala Ben Creaghs tutu

bathursttiger
Member
Member
Posts: 2648
Joined: Thu 02 Dec, 2010 5:21 pm

Post by bathursttiger » Mon 19 Mar, 2018 11:44 am

innsaneink wrote:
Sun 18 Mar, 2018 11:06 am
tigerlogic wrote:
Sun 18 Mar, 2018 8:48 am
supercoach wrote:
Sat 17 Mar, 2018 11:41 pm
What about when Munster tripped/back slammed on of our players. I thought that would come under a dangerous tackle or a least not in the spirit of the game

That “trip” is part of wrestling take downs and was beautifully executed!
Nothing wrong with that at all it happens many times each games when players are holding themselves up and defensive players need that take down...
I was more concerned about the TWO times Cam Smith wasn’t square at marker and then made the tackle and wasn’t penalised.. but that’s the influence he has over refs I guess
Oldies know it as the Cumberland throw
I thought that the NRL outlawed the old Cumberland throw?
I don’t think that tackles like this are in the spirit of the game.
Could you imagine Cam blowing up it it happened to one of his players.

User avatar
Cultured Bogan
Member
Member
Posts: 17826
Joined: Tue 15 Sep, 2009 11:20 pm
Location: Blue Mountains

Post by Cultured Bogan » Mon 19 Mar, 2018 12:55 pm

bathursttiger wrote:
Mon 19 Mar, 2018 11:44 am
innsaneink wrote:
Sun 18 Mar, 2018 11:06 am
tigerlogic wrote:
Sun 18 Mar, 2018 8:48 am
supercoach wrote:
Sat 17 Mar, 2018 11:41 pm
What about when Munster tripped/back slammed on of our players. I thought that would come under a dangerous tackle or a least not in the spirit of the game

That “trip” is part of wrestling take downs and was beautifully executed!
Nothing wrong with that at all it happens many times each games when players are holding themselves up and defensive players need that take down...
I was more concerned about the TWO times Cam Smith wasn’t square at marker and then made the tackle and wasn’t penalised.. but that’s the influence he has over refs I guess
Oldies know it as the Cumberland throw
I thought that the NRL outlawed the old Cumberland throw?
I don’t think that tackles like this are in the spirit of the game.
Could you imagine Cam blowing up it it happened to one of his players.
We all would have known how he would have carried on had Kev happened to incur a serious injury.
It's not cruelty to animals if you inject enough amphetamines.

Cuando llegue el día, y estoy parado a las puertas del cielo, será Dios pidiendo mi perdón...

User avatar
Geo.
Member
Member
Posts: 29200
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 10:55 pm
Location: Perugia Italy..

Post by Geo. » Mon 19 Mar, 2018 1:12 pm

Cultured Bogan wrote:
Mon 19 Mar, 2018 12:55 pm
bathursttiger wrote:
Mon 19 Mar, 2018 11:44 am
innsaneink wrote:
Sun 18 Mar, 2018 11:06 am
tigerlogic wrote:
Sun 18 Mar, 2018 8:48 am



That “trip” is part of wrestling take downs and was beautifully executed!
Nothing wrong with that at all it happens many times each games when players are holding themselves up and defensive players need that take down...
I was more concerned about the TWO times Cam Smith wasn’t square at marker and then made the tackle and wasn’t penalised.. but that’s the influence he has over refs I guess
Oldies know it as the Cumberland throw
I thought that the NRL outlawed the old Cumberland throw?
I don’t think that tackles like this are in the spirit of the game.
Could you imagine Cam blowing up it it happened to one of his players.
We all would have known how he would have carried on had Kev happened to incur a serious injury.
For sure.....something like would not have happened if it wasn't for his hair..
Ivan's Laws

1. You are either on the Bus or you are off..
2. The Star of the Team is the Team
3. Be the player your teammates want to play with..


Byron Bay Fan
Member
Member
Posts: 4832
Joined: Sat 17 Oct, 2015 2:14 pm

Post by Byron Bay Fan » Mon 19 Mar, 2018 1:16 pm

Farah would have fixed the ref up.
Malcolm Knox: What has happened this week is a pity for the Tigers, a pity for Jason Taylor and a pity for Robbie Farah, who had achieved more than the Big Four put together but was somehow turned into collateral damage. (SMH 25-26 March, 2017)

User avatar
GNR4LIFE
Member
Member
Posts: 22197
Joined: Mon 28 Feb, 2011 5:57 pm

Post by GNR4LIFE » Mon 19 Mar, 2018 1:28 pm

I've watched wrestling matches with heel referees who were more unbiased than these refs.

Go You Good Things
Member
Member
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed 13 Jul, 2016 3:54 pm

Post by Go You Good Things » Mon 19 Mar, 2018 2:36 pm

On the "Cameron throw" . . . . 2 things.
1... Munster, with that smug, please hit me head of his . . . just stood there pretending to point defensive positioning to a fellow losing player. Didn't even have the decency to look down at Kev and offer any sort of concern.
2.... Look closely and you will see Smith instigate Kev's rotation with a sly nudge with the head.
All this after the held call. Typical cheating scum. Soul-less, passionless, identity-less cheating scum of the league. Manly, Souths and Parra all rate higher on my list of hated clubs.
Smith's swan dive at the feet of Mats should be shown to every budding referee so they can easily recognise simulation and not reward it with a sin bin.
So much sweeter a victory overcoming the putrid bias shown against us.

supercoach
Member
Member
Posts: 7043
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 2:38 pm

Post by supercoach » Mon 19 Mar, 2018 3:19 pm

bathursttiger wrote:
Mon 19 Mar, 2018 11:44 am
innsaneink wrote:
Sun 18 Mar, 2018 11:06 am
tigerlogic wrote:
Sun 18 Mar, 2018 8:48 am
supercoach wrote:
Sat 17 Mar, 2018 11:41 pm
What about when Munster tripped/back slammed on of our players. I thought that would come under a dangerous tackle or a least not in the spirit of the game

That “trip” is part of wrestling take downs and was beautifully executed!
Nothing wrong with that at all it happens many times each games when players are holding themselves up and defensive players need that take down...
I was more concerned about the TWO times Cam Smith wasn’t square at marker and then made the tackle and wasn’t penalised.. but that’s the influence he has over refs I guess
Oldies know it as the Cumberland throw
I thought that the NRL outlawed the old Cumberland throw?
I don’t think that tackles like this are in the spirit of the game.
Could you imagine Cam blowing up it it happened to one of his players.
The main issue was the ref called held before Munster decided to perform a back slam with half pike!!

User avatar
underdog
Member
Member
Posts: 5322
Joined: Tue 27 Apr, 2010 5:25 pm
Location: Gold Coast

Post by underdog » Mon 19 Mar, 2018 4:10 pm

Byron Bay Fan wrote:
Mon 19 Mar, 2018 1:16 pm
Farah would have fixed the ref up.
LOL - you mean that Nufty playing Hooker for Norths in Reggies? He couldn't fix up a root in a brothel at the moment... :roll
Image

User avatar
Geo.
Member
Member
Posts: 29200
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 10:55 pm
Location: Perugia Italy..

Post by Geo. » Mon 19 Mar, 2018 4:49 pm

Damn just when you thought the stinky bait would be ignored..
Ivan's Laws

1. You are either on the Bus or you are off..
2. The Star of the Team is the Team
3. Be the player your teammates want to play with..

User avatar
Tigerstruck
Member
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri 21 Apr, 2017 9:10 am

Post by Tigerstruck » Mon 19 Mar, 2018 5:29 pm

cqtiger wrote:
Sun 18 Mar, 2018 12:22 pm
The refs will have nothing to answer for.

If you put the magnifying glass on each Storm penalty they will pass the pub test. However, what doesn’t get scrutinised are the penalties NOT given, as in why the Tigers only got one penalty in the second half.
Yep completely agree. Most, if not all of our penalties were legitimate, but the Storm should've been penalised so many more times than they were on Saturday night. If the refs penalised the Storm every time they held on to a tackle like we were when we got penalised, then instead of being 9-1, the penalty count should've been evens, or even in our favour.
Of course, the penalty count just made a gutsy win even better, but I do think that if its not sorted in three weeks time, we'll have a very tough game playing a Melbourne team that will be able to capitalise on an 18-8 penalty count.

User avatar
Chicken Faced Killa
Member
Member
Posts: 1897
Joined: Mon 17 Apr, 2017 8:19 pm

Post by Chicken Faced Killa » Mon 19 Mar, 2018 6:14 pm

Tigerstruck wrote:
Mon 19 Mar, 2018 5:29 pm
cqtiger wrote:
Sun 18 Mar, 2018 12:22 pm
The refs will have nothing to answer for.

If you put the magnifying glass on each Storm penalty they will pass the pub test. However, what doesn’t get scrutinised are the penalties NOT given, as in why the Tigers only got one penalty in the second half.
Yep completely agree. Most, if not all of our penalties were legitimate, but the Storm should've been penalised so many more times than they were on Saturday night. If the refs penalised the Storm every time they held on to a tackle like we were when we got penalised, then instead of being 9-1, the penalty count should've been evens, or even in our favour.
Of course, the penalty count just made a gutsy win even better, but I do think that if its not sorted in three weeks time, we'll have a very tough game playing a Melbourne team that will be able to capitalise on an 18-8 penalty count.
The shine is wearing off the storm and they will have to deal with being the team who doesn’t get the rub of the green for a while.

User avatar
2041
Member
Member
Posts: 1079
Joined: Fri 14 Jan, 2011 12:32 pm

Post by 2041 » Mon 19 Mar, 2018 6:33 pm

Honestly, there are people making themselves look foolish on this thread with accusations of bias. The penalty count looks extreme but that's the defensive style the Tigers are playing - it's on the edge and we're going to have to accept that we'll be pinged for a lot of offside calls, slowing the play the ball etc. The gamble is that we'll cope, and so far it's paid off. A few of the Storm penalties looked marginal but that's always the way.

A few specific points:

- If there was a conspiracy to "get Billy his win" why was the forward pass to Addo-Carr called back? Don't get me wrong, it was forward, but I see far more egregious ones let go in virtually every game including two consecutive ones in a try Brisbane were awarded the previous night. at 8-6 to Melbourne this would have been a sealer in all likelihood and if the fix was in it 100% would have been given surely.

- Munster's throw on Naiqama. Looks bad and I don't doubt it's evidence that Munster is a germ, but it's perfectly legal. At the very least it was in process as held was called - it certainly didn't happen after the call.

- The sin binning was completely in line with refereeing policy this season. Smith absolutely milked it but Matulino also absolutely knew where he was. He thought the defensive line was shot so he impeded Smith - as the third consecutive penalty and a professional foul it's a binning every day of the week.

- In general, the comp this season has been riddled with penalties from what I've seen. In the second half the Tigers did a lot of defending and their defensive style is, as I say, pretty on the edge. I just don't think the count is out of line with what might have been expected given all the inputs.

User avatar
Doc Tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 2285
Joined: Sun 30 Mar, 2014 9:53 pm

Post by Doc Tiger » Tue 20 Mar, 2018 10:32 am

supercoach wrote:
Sat 17 Mar, 2018 11:31 pm
Was at WT Ashfield in a packed auditorium with a few beers under my belt and we were all blowing up with the penalty count, although we were a tad one eyed. I just seemed to think the refs did not reward our defence and for 70 minutes were trying to get a win up for Billy, than with 10 minutes to go thought their will be a royal commission if they dont put the whistle in their pocket.

Alls forgotten after a gutsy win, but I think we could have had pages of people blowing up if we had lost

Storm forum didn't see things in the same light. :lol:

Re: Rd 2 vs Wests Tigers
Postby bushman » Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:21 pm

Everyone seem want to rush the play. Munster did not look like he had his 6 head on. Brody needs more time and Silly will be lucky not to be playing in Qld. The two ref system has to go we had one ref keeping 9-10 meters and the other 13-15 at times tonight so if you add up just 2 extra meters per tackle that’s 10 per set over game that a lot not to mention that one team can get in your face s lot easer. Not why we lost but didn’t help.

User avatar
Doc Tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 2285
Joined: Sun 30 Mar, 2014 9:53 pm

Post by Doc Tiger » Tue 20 Mar, 2018 11:05 am

Is this our Underdog posting on the Storms forum page???? :roll



Re: Rd 2 vs Wests Tigers
Postby underdog » Sun Mar 18, 2018 11:59 pm

18-8 penalty count against the Tigpies.

Slaters 300th game.

They also got a hard done by sin-binning.

Refs looked for every reason NOT to give the try to Brooks (I don't know who the Tigpies have pissed off there, but it looked farcical they way they kept searching for reasons NOT to give it to them)

Credit where credits due lads, surely. They were just better than us.

happy tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 40524
Joined: Sun 27 Feb, 2011 4:49 pm

Post by happy tiger » Tue 20 Mar, 2018 11:18 am

Cultured Bogan wrote:
Mon 19 Mar, 2018 8:58 am
Geo. wrote:
Sun 18 Mar, 2018 8:50 am
GNR4LIFE wrote:
Sun 18 Mar, 2018 8:01 am
Let’s not forget the dozen looks they had at Brooks try, looking for a reason not to give it.
On that what were they acually looking for..you don't get bunker audio at mthe game and we couldn't work it out with all the rocking and rollling

Was it some sort of obstrution lost ball what...?
They had about six thousand views of him taking the pass. They must have been thinking (or hoping) he lost it into the defender.

They were looking at every reason not to give that. I nearly fell off my chair when they said Lawrence was OK for running at Slater.
Actually they were looking at an obstruction where Lawrence contacts Slater and where the ball player was in relation to that

Rowdy should have known better , he should of avoided contact with Slater and continued his run , he was lucky he contacted the inside shoulder of Slater and the ball had just barely passed by

It was a very close thing , luckily for us the ref had called try ......

User avatar
Cultured Bogan
Member
Member
Posts: 17826
Joined: Tue 15 Sep, 2009 11:20 pm
Location: Blue Mountains

Post by Cultured Bogan » Tue 20 Mar, 2018 1:56 pm

happy tiger wrote:
Tue 20 Mar, 2018 11:18 am
Cultured Bogan wrote:
Mon 19 Mar, 2018 8:58 am
Geo. wrote:
Sun 18 Mar, 2018 8:50 am
GNR4LIFE wrote:
Sun 18 Mar, 2018 8:01 am
Let’s not forget the dozen looks they had at Brooks try, looking for a reason not to give it.
On that what were they acually looking for..you don't get bunker audio at mthe game and we couldn't work it out with all the rocking and rollling

Was it some sort of obstrution lost ball what...?
They had about six thousand views of him taking the pass. They must have been thinking (or hoping) he lost it into the defender.

They were looking at every reason not to give that. I nearly fell off my chair when they said Lawrence was OK for running at Slater.
Actually they were looking at an obstruction where Lawrence contacts Slater and where the ball player was in relation to that

Rowdy should have known better , he should of avoided contact with Slater and continued his run , he was lucky he contacted the inside shoulder of Slater and the ball had just barely passed by

It was a very close thing , luckily for us the ref had called try ......
It was fair IMO, I had them nailed on to rule it a no try though so it wouldn't ruin Billy's party.
It's not cruelty to animals if you inject enough amphetamines.

Cuando llegue el día, y estoy parado a las puertas del cielo, será Dios pidiendo mi perdón...

Post Reply