LIVE GAME Round 14 v Panthers

Live Game Discussion
Speed2burn said:
Same tackle, different interpretation
Click to expand...
Whilst Fainu did not get charged after being looked at, it was penalised due to the fact dropping stopped the attacker’s momentum.
The Sorenson tackle image you are using as a comparison is with both players still moving forwards. There is no dropping motion to pull the player back.
 
BAGNF05 said:
If the game is going to nit pick on contact on kickers then take away the penalty goal option and award the penalty where the contact actually happened. That was a joke.
Click to expand...
Did you see Annsley’s statement.
To be fair. Everyone is thinking harsh call however Luai is the first player in months to hit a kicker that way.
 
Stevec said:
Not the worst reffing this year
We won the pens 5-3 in 1st half and 7-6 overall
However the penalty on Luai for his tackle on Tallagi was just plain wrong
I wonder if the tackle was made by a top player in a top club whether the ref would have waved play on .
I thought we lost because our attack was disjointed not because of the ref

Ziggy the ref was famous a couple of seasons ago for ruling Ipaps
knocked on putting the ball down and didn't go upstairs and replays showed it was a perfect put down .A famous clanger !
Click to expand...
Lucy Leulia.
 
I was at the game on Sunday sitting right above the entrance to the ground where the commentators come out. Gus left the ground right below me. Really wanted to drop something on him and say that’s because of Galvin.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7944.jpeg
    IMG_7944.jpeg
    464 KB · Views: 8
Needaname said:
Whilst Fainu did not get charged after being looked at, it was penalised due to the fact dropping stopped the attacker’s momentum.
The Sorenson tackle image you are using as a comparison is with both players still moving forwards. There is no dropping motion to pull the player back.
Click to expand...
I suppose it was his forward motion that caused Bula to be dragged down with the entirety of the pressure being driven into his knees.
 
poopy_diaper said:
I suppose it was his forward motion that caused Bula to be dragged down with the entirety of the pressure being driven into his knees.
Click to expand...
The supposed dragging you are referring to had nothing to do with him dropping his weight to the ground. It had to do with him swinging round to get in front of him. It is not a hip drop.
 
Needaname said:
The supposed dragging you are referring to had nothing to do with him dropping his weight to the ground. It had to do with him swinging round to get in front of him. It is not a hip drop.
Click to expand...

Grabbing someone from behind, leaving your feet and using your body weight to drag a running player down by collapsing your weight into their knees is a very dangerous tackle. Sorenson ended up where he did because he recklessly threw his body around in a way that forced Jahream to either collapse completely or risk having both his knees explode. If you've ever had your legs collapsed that way you will know Jahream avoided injury entirely because he willingly didn't maintain his footing.

Whether it is a hip drop by definition or not it is the most dangerous example of the tackle they tried to outlaw. They invented additional KPIs because the referees were too stupid to recognise the difference between a reckless attempt (what Sorenson did) and incidental contact with no weight disbursement. The "has to touch the legs" nonsense means genuinely reckless tackles are now widely defended by people while touch and go ones are punished.

I look forward to us having a player sin binned for a less serious hip drop next Friday night.
 
poopy_diaper said:
Grabbing someone from behind, leaving your feet and using your body weight to drag a running player down by collapsing your weight into their knees is a very dangerous tackle. Sorenson ended up where he did because he recklessly threw his body around in a way that forced Jahream to either collapse completely or risk having both his knees explode. If you've ever had your legs collapsed that way you will know Jahream avoided injury entirely because he willingly didn't maintain his footing.

Whether it is a hip drop by definition or not it is the most dangerous example of the tackle they tried to outlaw. They invented additional KPIs because the referees were too stupid to recognise the difference between a reckless attempt (what Sorenson did) and incidental contact with no weight disbursement. The "has to touch the legs" nonsense means genuinely reckless tackles are now widely defended by people while touch and go ones are punished.

I look forward to us having a player sin binned for a less serious hip drop next Friday night.
Click to expand...
The tackle was identified as having an attacking player who is pushing forward in contact being stopped suddenly by a player using their weight to drop their body onto the lower limbs of the player in motion. Can be done in a twisting or jumping and dropping motion. It was brought in to protect players knees and or ankles what Sorensen did was not use a hip drop to stop Bula’s motion, yes he used his body weight but both players were moving at speed. Had they been stationary I’d agree with you.
 
Needaname said:
The tackle was identified as having an attacking player who is pushing forward in contact being stopped suddenly by a player using their weight to drop their body onto the lower limbs of the player in motion. Can be done in a twisting or jumping and dropping motion. It was brought in to protect players knees and or ankles what Sorensen did was not use a hip drop to stop Bula’s motion, yes he used his body weight but both players were moving at speed. Had they been stationary I’d agree with you.
Click to expand...
This is an extremely generous interpretation of his tackle.
 
hank37w said:
True but do you have a stat for our right side versus our left side.

Our opponents seem to target our right edge more than our left or is that just my imagination.
Click to expand...
I think most teams favour the left. The half back traditionally plays on the right as typically a higher percentage of players are right foot dominant and would also prefer a right to left pass. If the ball starts on the right the half is first to touch the pass and would shift out to a running 5/8 or fullback with the full width of the field as the shape and with running options this is known as open side play.
For a decade and even now the Tigers have been playing with halfback that is left side dominate which means our open side is to the right which is generally is lined up with the more attacking variety of player of the opposition and not a defensive minded edge.
We actually should score more frequently playing to that side then most teams however we would also play our more defensive minded players on the right which would make our attack more clunky.
I think this is the issue most have with Luai at half. Being a left side dominant player we are forced to play agaisnt our players natural ability and instincts when attacking. Still luai is building and getting more and more used to playing both sides of the field.
 
Hi Team,

Late to this thread as I had visitors from the Riff down for the long weekend. I was outnumbered around the tele 5-1, but all of us thought it was a great game where the result could have been different had 50/50 calls been reversed. I'm not going to rehash what has been done to death here already, but, I thought it it may be interesting for some to hear the thoughts of what the Penrith supporters had to say on a few incidents live.

In relation to the two Luai penalties. We had divided opinions on the escort - I thought he had a right to stand his ground the Panthers here thought Martin was obstructed. After the replays we agreed that the decsion could have gone either way and gave the whistle blower the benefit of the doubt. On putting the kicker in a dangerous postion not one of us thought it should have been a penalty; and despite what Annesley came out with this morning I still do not believe that was a penalty. However, it is a perception thing and the officials percieved it differently so we just have to live with it and get on with the game.

I think the same goes for the Sorenson tackle - it could easily be preceived as a hip drop and penalised - but it wasn't so play on.

The truth of it all is that is we were a better side these would not be defining moments - they would be taken in stride and we go on to win. We aren't too far off that being the case for us and we are building.

If you really want to look to what lost us the game we should focus on the tackles missed by Mason, the below FG efforts from AD, and the poor edge defence at times.

I'm not overly critical of Benji's use of the bench - I'm sure he had a "plan" to use all of the reserves but he adjusted that plan based on how the game played out. Sure he left some fresh legs on the pine - but were they the legs needed at the time? Leaving him on the pine didn't cost us the game, if fact the rotations we had almost won it for us.

The bounce of the ball will be in our favour soon enough and we will get a couple more wins. Hard to pick where they will come as we have a tough run over the next few weeks. Ricky's boys are playing well, but they are a team that plays off momentum. We're a chance at home!
 
Last edited:
Tucker said:
There is an impressive amount of hyperbole in this rant…at least I hope it is?
For your own health I would take some time away from the game if you seriously believe all this.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I’ll accept that.

I’m just a frustrated Tigers supporter seeing my team making a fantastic effort only to have the wind taken out of their sails by dubious calls too often. I don’t see other teams receiving as many dubious calls as we do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 1,883 (members: 44, guests: 1,839)
Back
Top