Did anyone else notice how the Storm were hooking their legs around tacklers and attempting to get a quick play the ball so there would only be one marker? Maybe it was just me but, I noticed all throughout that first half that the Melbourne players were doing this to try and disadvantage the defensive line.
Melbourne tactics....
- Thread starter Tacky
- Start date
sideline_eye
New member
@ said:
How did that work for them?
old_man_tiger
Well-known member
Apart from their usual bias the refs are really bad the week following a game where they are criticised for hitting a team too hard.
2 cases, I thought the refs were very easy on us last week following the Broncos debacle. This week the storm went from 19 penalties to 2\. Honestly, that is impossible without a conscious effort from the refs.
2 cases, I thought the refs were very easy on us last week following the Broncos debacle. This week the storm went from 19 penalties to 2\. Honestly, that is impossible without a conscious effort from the refs.
N
newtiger
Guest
@ said:
When MCK knocked the ball on in the second half, Ryan Hoffman was nearly in front of the dummy half.
happy_tiger
Well-known member
@ said:
More to the point Benji just needs to hang onto the ball , how many times does he have to throw a horrible pass when he is under pressure and put the next player under greater pressure
Yes Hoffman wasn't square but that isn't the point
Benji's been around a long time and should know better
Spud_Murphy
New member
@ said:
Your last sentence says it all and that's exactly what is wrong with this game. How is it ever a fair contest when refs can consciously change the outcome of a match so readily?
Anyway I'm just glad to see some justice shining through so far this year with many of the perennial 'favourites' struggling to win matches, despite ref bias, and the 'unfavoured' teams leading the comp!
And I'm even more glad to be rid of having to play against Melbourne again this season because of unevenness of playing 17 against 18 all the time is just too much. That we won both matches under these conditions is nothing short of a miracle!
The refs weren't blowing offside penalties for some reason - total contrast to rounds 1-4\. Hard to say for sure but from where I was sat it advantaged the Tigers most because our defensive line was definitely more, er, marginal.
Kudos to the Kiwi behind me who shouted "is your first name Cam or Steve?" when Smith milked a first half penalty.
Kudos to the Kiwi behind me who shouted "is your first name Cam or Steve?" when Smith milked a first half penalty.
old_man_tiger
Well-known member
@ said:
Mate there are 2 lollipop men out there, so 17-19 :smiley:
They literally praised NAS for playing the ball properly for anyone who didn't hear the fox coverage - "well done Nelson!", 3 or 4 times.
old_man_tiger
Well-known member
@ said:
The crowd seemed to get more involved in the last 20 but it seemed dead up until then, what were your thoughts? It doesn't always come across on TV.
@ said:
It certainly wasn't Leichhardt but I've seen just as bad at ANZ. It was the first game of a double header where 80% of the crowd was there for game two - so no great surprise. I'd say we had the bulk of support but it was mostly Warriors fans wanting the Storm to lose so not exactly fervent.
What I would say is that the atmosphere for game two was fantastic. Sold out and noisy as hell - there's massive support for the Warriors if they can stay good.
jirskyr
Well-known member
@ said:
I agree, teams don't improve like that in 1 week. Despite many supporters wanting the refs to "stick to their guns", it's fairly evident to me that this round and half of the last round they've paired back the penalties.
Reason = no way so many clubs have suddenly improved their discipline for the large drop in penalty counts we are seeing.
Personally I am a fan of the decreased penalties - refs have set an excessive example Rounds 1-3 IMO but it has reintroduced the 10 sin bin as a valid option and been highly aggressive towards backchat (which I support). They've made their point and we can now get back to something a little less heavily policed.
I've said before that I don't believe absolute strict control of the 10m is possible, it's one rule where every ruck at least 13 players are trying to cheat, or simply too buggered to make it back, and it cannot be policed consistently if it's policed too aggressively because they'll still miss half of the offsides.
