LIVE GAME Round 18 vs. Storm

[Enmore_Tiger]

Kind of surprised the lack of commentary in this thread about the Faagutu sin bin. I accept it was a borderline penalty but I reject the use of the sin bin, which is becoming a new epidemic in the game.

Generally speaking, a professional foul (PF) is a deliberate breach of the rules in order to prevent a scoring opportunity. NRL does not provide an official interpretation (that I can find). Historically in the NRL/ARL/NSWRL a PF has included an element of cynicism, i.e. not just an intentional foul but a cynical abuse of the accepted norms of play. This would include holding down in the tackle when you have conceded a significant line break, grabbing a player who takes a quick tap etc. Note how the concept of a "scoring opportunity" is very nebulous and is easily applied anywhere on the field where the play is far from being an imminent opportunity.

Faatape runs a silly block, but he also clearly turns away at the last moment. He does not pull or push the opponent, but he does place himself into the path where the opponent is leaping/landing. It's mildly dangerous.

This is where I differentiate between a cynical intervention of a player in possession (like a jersey-pull or a hold-down) versus an illegal challenge of a speculative nature. In the first instance like a jersey-grab the opponent definitely has the ball and you definitely prevent them advancing with it. In the Faatape incident, the opponent has not even touched the ball (Warbrick does not in fact lay a hand of the ball) and it's still speculative whether or not he would have ended up with the ball. Many many bomb attempts are dropped and you cannot get further from a possession guarantee than a bomb (as opposed to a pass, a loose ball or a grubber). This is why aerial contests are so rarely penalty tries.

There is no guarantee Warbrick catches the ball and he's short of the line, so what Faatape has done is infringe the ball contest, not a genuine scoring opportunity.

More than this however, I also fail to see how Faatape's block is any worse or more cynical than any other disingenuous kick contest, including the hundreds and hundreds of escort plays that are penalised every year. The ref in fact says to Api "they've ruled it an escort".

So if Faataape's one is the standard, so be it, but it's clearly not the standard. We should therefore expect to see a raft of sin bins for kick defence infringements, almost all of which involve an attacker being in some form of try-scoring or attacking attempt, with a defender deliberately interfering with their run. Doubly-so because kick defence is, almost by definition, typically a 1-1 (or at least "just a few on one") contest.

I was at the ground, but on the replay the commentators didn't seem that fussed. Maybe I am alone on this one. It certainly flipped the game on its head and removed the genuine contest - because Tigers and Storm were fairly evenly-matched for the other 70 minutes of the match.

Of course I don't watch all minutes of all NRL games, but Tigers so often seem to be on the negative end of these new or newly-tested interpretations, just like when Bryce Gibbs got 3 weeks for sliding into a try scorer (and almost never suspended since) or when Cowboys were permitted to challenge "the end of the match" call by the ref.

And like last week when we had 2 binned against Roosters and Annesley comes out to apologise that they were not the appropriate use of the bin, as if an apology makes a lick of bloody difference in the wash-up, or as if the apology comes with any kind of implied "get square" in coming matches.

Totally with you. I was thinking no f-ing way, and was fuming at the NRL when he was sent. Warbrick lands totally safely. Penalty only. I didn't post because a thread came out with posters saying the ref had no choice, so I thought I got it wrong. The call was a disgrace. I'm so anti NRL.

 

[Tucker]

It was the correct call.
It was a definite try scoring opportunity with a well placed kick to a man much taller, who had won the leap, that landed pretty much on the tryline.
Faataape took him out illegally, having no eyes for the ball. In essence, he took out a player not in possession who was a huge chance of scoring once he received possession. It was a professional foul.
Sinbin every day of the week. The fact he wasnt charged indicates it was a PF and the penalty of ten in the bin is sufficient.
If Warbrick landed dangerously, i.e. flipped over on his head, it would have been a send off and suspension.

 

[Buttface]

Kind of surprised the lack of commentary in this thread about the [edit] Faatape sin bin. I accept it was a borderline penalty but I reject the use of the sin bin, which is becoming a new epidemic in the game.

Generally speaking, a professional foul (PF) is a deliberate breach of the rules in order to prevent a scoring opportunity. NRL does not provide an official interpretation (that I can find). Historically in the NRL/ARL/NSWRL a PF has included an element of cynicism, i.e. not just an intentional foul but a cynical abuse of the accepted norms of play. This would include holding down in the tackle when you have conceded a significant line break, grabbing a player who takes a quick tap etc. Note how the concept of a "scoring opportunity" is very nebulous and is easily applied anywhere on the field where the play is far from being an imminent opportunity.

Faatape runs a silly block, but he also clearly turns away at the last moment. He does not pull or push the opponent, but he does place himself into the path where the opponent is leaping/landing. It's mildly dangerous.

This is where I differentiate between a cynical intervention of a player in possession (like a jersey-pull or a hold-down) versus an illegal challenge of a speculative nature. In the first instance like a jersey-grab the opponent definitely has the ball and you definitely prevent them advancing with it. In the Faatape incident, the opponent has not even touched the ball (Warbrick does not in fact lay a hand of the ball) and it's still speculative whether or not he would have ended up with the ball. Many many bomb attempts are dropped and you cannot get further from a possession guarantee than a bomb (as opposed to a pass, a loose ball or a grubber). This is why aerial contests are so rarely penalty tries.

There is no guarantee Warbrick catches the ball and he's short of the line, so what Faatape has done is infringe the ball contest, not a genuine scoring opportunity.

More than this however, I also fail to see how Faatape's block is any worse or more cynical than any other disingenuous kick contest, including the hundreds and hundreds of escort plays that are penalised every year. The ref in fact says to Api "they've ruled it an escort".

So if Faataape's one is the standard, so be it, but it's clearly not the standard. We should therefore expect to see a raft of sin bins for kick defence infringements, almost all of which involve an attacker being in some form of try-scoring or attacking attempt, with a defender deliberately interfering with their run. Doubly-so because kick defence is, almost by definition, typically a 1-1 (or at least "just a few on one") contest.

I was at the ground, but on the replay the commentators didn't seem that fussed. Maybe I am alone on this one. It certainly flipped the game on its head and removed the genuine contest - because Tigers and Storm were fairly evenly-matched for the other 70 minutes of the match.

Of course I don't watch all minutes of all NRL games, but Tigers so often seem to be on the negative end of these new or newly-tested interpretations, just like when Bryce Gibbs got 3 weeks for sliding into a try scorer (and almost never suspended since) or when Cowboys were permitted to challenge "the end of the match" call by the ref.

And like last week when we had 2 binned against Roosters and Annesley comes out to apologise that they were not the appropriate use of the bin, as if an apology makes a lick of bloody difference in the wash-up, or as if the apology comes with any kind of implied "get square" in coming matches.

Agree, but I’ve been red bashing lately and I’m probably jaded by all the dud calls, sin bins, and Anusly always saying sorry.
But, I would have binned him for stupidity and he would not be playing this week.

 

[tig_prmz]

Kind of surprised the lack of commentary in this thread about the [edit] Faatape sin bin. I accept it was a borderline penalty but I reject the use of the sin bin, which is becoming a new epidemic in the game.

Generally speaking, a professional foul (PF) is a deliberate breach of the rules in order to prevent a scoring opportunity. NRL does not provide an official interpretation (that I can find). Historically in the NRL/ARL/NSWRL a PF has included an element of cynicism, i.e. not just an intentional foul but a cynical abuse of the accepted norms of play. This would include holding down in the tackle when you have conceded a significant line break, grabbing a player who takes a quick tap etc. Note how the concept of a "scoring opportunity" is very nebulous and is easily applied anywhere on the field where the play is far from being an imminent opportunity.

Faatape runs a silly block, but he also clearly turns away at the last moment. He does not pull or push the opponent, but he does place himself into the path where the opponent is leaping/landing. It's mildly dangerous.

This is where I differentiate between a cynical intervention of a player in possession (like a jersey-pull or a hold-down) versus an illegal challenge of a speculative nature. In the first instance like a jersey-grab the opponent definitely has the ball and you definitely prevent them advancing with it. In the Faatape incident, the opponent has not even touched the ball (Warbrick does not in fact lay a hand of the ball) and it's still speculative whether or not he would have ended up with the ball. Many many bomb attempts are dropped and you cannot get further from a possession guarantee than a bomb (as opposed to a pass, a loose ball or a grubber). This is why aerial contests are so rarely penalty tries.

There is no guarantee Warbrick catches the ball and he's short of the line, so what Faatape has done is infringe the ball contest, not a genuine scoring opportunity.

More than this however, I also fail to see how Faatape's block is any worse or more cynical than any other disingenuous kick contest, including the hundreds and hundreds of escort plays that are penalised every year. The ref in fact says to Api "they've ruled it an escort".

So if Faataape's one is the standard, so be it, but it's clearly not the standard. We should therefore expect to see a raft of sin bins for kick defence infringements, almost all of which involve an attacker being in some form of try-scoring or attacking attempt, with a defender deliberately interfering with their run. Doubly-so because kick defence is, almost by definition, typically a 1-1 (or at least "just a few on one") contest.

I was at the ground, but on the replay the commentators didn't seem that fussed. Maybe I am alone on this one. It certainly flipped the game on its head and removed the genuine contest - because Tigers and Storm were fairly evenly-matched for the other 70 minutes of the match.

Of course I don't watch all minutes of all NRL games, but Tigers so often seem to be on the negative end of these new or newly-tested interpretations, just like when Bryce Gibbs got 3 weeks for sliding into a try scorer (and almost never suspended since) or when Cowboys were permitted to challenge "the end of the match" call by the ref.

And like last week when we had 2 binned against Roosters and Annesley comes out to apologise that they were not the appropriate use of the bin, as if an apology makes a lick of bloody difference in the wash-up, or as if the apology comes with any kind of implied "get square" in coming matches.

The winger was alone with no one close to him for 15m. Faatape had no chance of getting to the ball and took the man out. He can pretend to look lost and make it look like an accident that he hit the man but he took the man out without a clue as to where the ball is.

I don't know how you can say it's not a genuine try scoring opportunity? He is literally catching the ball on the try line.

Nothing to do with reputation or previous infringements. This was a sin- bin even before the crackdowns.

 

[batboy]

Good player, good leader, good person. What more do you want?

more Good Games,
More value for money....

Where is this 'Good Leader' being measured from....
I've not seen spades of it, Moments...... Maybe (?)

Certainly not enough of it for you to make that claim,
Unless your talking about leading re-hab?

 

[tiger_one]

 

[hank37w]

The winger was alone with no one close to him for 15m. Faatape had no chance of getting to the ball and took the man out. He can pretend to look lost and make it look like an accident that he hit the man but he took the man out without a clue as to where the ball is.

I don't know how you can say it's not a genuine try scoring opportunity? He is literally catching the ball on the try line.

Nothing to do with reputation or previous infringements. This was a sin- bin even before the crackdowns.

I blame the sin bin on Benji for making a totally mismatched selection.

Sure, we don't have much to choose from but surely picking someone who is at least tall and good in the air, if nothing else, would have been a better selection up against Warbrick.

 

[jirskyr]

The winger was alone with no one close to him for 15m. Faatape had no chance of getting to the ball and took the man out. He can pretend to look lost and make it look like an accident that he hit the man but he took the man out without a clue as to where the ball is.

I don't know how you can say it's not a genuine try scoring opportunity? He is literally catching the ball on the try line.

Nothing to do with reputation or previous infringements. This was a sin- bin even before the crackdowns.

I didn't say it wasn't a try-scoring opportunity, I said Faatape's infringement was firstly against a kick contest opportunity. The try scoring opportunity can only arise after the kick contest has concluded and the attacker has ended up with the ball.

The point is that no, Warbrick is not in fact catching the ball on the try line. Warbrick never touched the ball. Of course he never touched the ball because of colliding with Faatape, but Warbrick's leap was speculative and there is no attacking event in rugby league less reliable than an attempt to recover a bomb - less reliable than a pass or a grubber. In other words a bomb contest produces the lowest likelihood of you retaining possession compared with any other type of attacking play. One cannot assume, in judging a foul, that a bomb is as equal a try-scoring opportunity as interfering with a support player on a pass, or holding back a grubber chaser. They are not equivalent opportunities and 10 mins in the bin should not apply, in my opinion, to all those potential opportunities.

But as I said, I would be OK if challenges like Faatape were always deemed professional fouls and that was the standard. That any disingenuous kick defence was a professional foul. But it's clearly not the standard. I have seen 100 inappropriate kick defences and I'll see another 100 in the next few seasons, without the defender being sin-binned. Similarly you can make a very reasonable argument that any escort play is also a professional foul and should be sin-binned - it deprives the attacker of a reasonable chance of contesting a bomb.

So how is it that escorts are a penalty but not a sin-bin? What's the difference between running a player off his line and putting your body into the position where he is leaping? Will all 1-1 kick contests in future be deemed a foul play if you do not properly and genuinely contest the ball?

I feel like I have to revisit this thread in future and post any time a kick contest is penalised but not binned.

 

[BAGNF05]

Isn’t Doueihi the lowest paid in the team? often you have to pay the going rate to get the job done exactly how you envision.

Not yet. Think he’s on well over half a million this year.

 

[BAGNF05]

Good player, good leader, good person. What more do you want?

On Saturday.

A. Look for your speedy fullback in support to ice a try to put you up two scores.

B. Don’t lose control of the ball in attempting to stand up on the 2nd tackle when you have a golden chance to score right on halt time.

C. Ground the ball in the corner instead of bouncing it, quality outside backs are scoring those every week.

3 game changing moments ❌❌❌

 

[BAGNF05]

Kind of surprised the lack of commentary in this thread about the [edit] Faatape sin bin. I accept it was a borderline penalty but I reject the use of the sin bin, which is becoming a new epidemic in the game.

Generally speaking, a professional foul (PF) is a deliberate breach of the rules in order to prevent a scoring opportunity. NRL does not provide an official interpretation (that I can find). Historically in the NRL/ARL/NSWRL a PF has included an element of cynicism, i.e. not just an intentional foul but a cynical abuse of the accepted norms of play. This would include holding down in the tackle when you have conceded a significant line break, grabbing a player who takes a quick tap etc. Note how the concept of a "scoring opportunity" is very nebulous and is easily applied anywhere on the field where the play is far from being an imminent opportunity.

Faatape runs a silly block, but he also clearly turns away at the last moment. He does not pull or push the opponent, but he does place himself into the path where the opponent is leaping/landing. It's mildly dangerous.

This is where I differentiate between a cynical intervention of a player in possession (like a jersey-pull or a hold-down) versus an illegal challenge of a speculative nature. In the first instance like a jersey-grab the opponent definitely has the ball and you definitely prevent them advancing with it. In the Faatape incident, the opponent has not even touched the ball (Warbrick does not in fact lay a hand of the ball) and it's still speculative whether or not he would have ended up with the ball. Many many bomb attempts are dropped and you cannot get further from a possession guarantee than a bomb (as opposed to a pass, a loose ball or a grubber). This is why aerial contests are so rarely penalty tries.

There is no guarantee Warbrick catches the ball and he's short of the line, so what Faatape has done is infringe the ball contest, not a genuine scoring opportunity.

More than this however, I also fail to see how Faatape's block is any worse or more cynical than any other disingenuous kick contest, including the hundreds and hundreds of escort plays that are penalised every year. The ref in fact says to Api "they've ruled it an escort".

So if Faataape's one is the standard, so be it, but it's clearly not the standard. We should therefore expect to see a raft of sin bins for kick defence infringements, almost all of which involve an attacker being in some form of try-scoring or attacking attempt, with a defender deliberately interfering with their run. Doubly-so because kick defence is, almost by definition, typically a 1-1 (or at least "just a few on one") contest.

I was at the ground, but on the replay the commentators didn't seem that fussed. Maybe I am alone on this one. It certainly flipped the game on its head and removed the genuine contest - because Tigers and Storm were fairly evenly-matched for the other 70 minutes of the match.

Of course I don't watch all minutes of all NRL games, but Tigers so often seem to be on the negative end of these new or newly-tested interpretations, just like when Bryce Gibbs got 3 weeks for sliding into a try scorer (and almost never suspended since) or when Cowboys were permitted to challenge "the end of the match" call by the ref.

And like last week when we had 2 binned against Roosters and Annesley comes out to apologise that they were not the appropriate use of the bin, as if an apology makes a lick of bloody difference in the wash-up, or as if the apology comes with any kind of implied "get square" in coming matches.

We’ve been dudded a few times with sin bins but when he didn’t look for the ball he was always gone.

 

[Tucker]

I didn't say it wasn't a try-scoring opportunity, I said Faatape's infringement was firstly against a kick contest opportunity. The try scoring opportunity can only arise after the kick contest has concluded and the attacker has ended up with the ball.

The point is that no, Warbrick is not in fact catching the ball on the try line. Warbrick never touched the ball. Of course he never touched the ball because of colliding with Faatape, but Warbrick's leap was speculative and there is no attacking event in rugby league less reliable than an attempt to recover a bomb - less reliable than a pass or a grubber. In other words a bomb contest produces the lowest likelihood of you retaining possession compared with any other type of attacking play. One cannot assume, in judging a foul, that a bomb is as equal a try-scoring opportunity as interfering with a support player on a pass, or holding back a grubber chaser. They are not equivalent opportunities and 10 mins in the bin should not apply, in my opinion, to all those potential opportunities.

But as I said, I would be OK if challenges like Faatape were always deemed professional fouls and that was the standard. That any disingenuous kick defence was a professional foul. But it's clearly not the standard. I have seen 100 inappropriate kick defences and I'll see another 100 in the next few seasons, without the defender being sin-binned. Similarly you can make a very reasonable argument that any escort play is also a professional foul and should be sin-binned - it deprives the attacker of a reasonable chance of contesting a bomb.

So how is it that escorts are a penalty but not a sin-bin? What's the difference between running a player off his line and putting your body into the position where he is leaping? Will all 1-1 kick contests in future be deemed a foul play if you do not properly and genuinely contest the ball?

I feel like I have to revisit this thread in future and post any time a kick contest is penalised but not binned.

He didn’t run him off his line, he tackled him without the ball. The only reason Warbrick didn’t catch that ball is because he was taken out before it got there.

 

[Jolls]

I didn't get to watch the game live as I was working. I read through this thread before watching the game tonight and as a result focussed on Matamua, Faataape and our defnesive structure (40 points leaked two weeks in a row). I was expecting to be a little demoralised leading onto the run home; however, while there are issues, there are some good signs. I think, based on our performance agaisnt the competition leaders, if we tighten up a few things we we have the ability to beat both Souths and the slimeys.

Looking at the negatives first:
Faataape was definetely outplayed by Warbrick - but he wasn't disgraced. The sin bin was poor - but clearly playing out of position on the wing. That is more of a coaching error. I think AD on the wing and Faataape in the centres is a better combination and I will explain whay a little later.

Defence - three of Melbournes tries would not have been scored if there weren't poor decisions made by individuals.

Galvin has a problem in defence - he turns in when his inside man has turned out. This is a problem on the drop off play and also if they run any trye of block. Sam F pushes out, Galvin Turns in Olam has already turned out based on what Sam F does and they run through the gap or create the overlap and run around. Galvin was burnt twice in this manner with the commentators putting it down to Sam F and Olam. The first time it was compounded by no inside pressure being applied by Api or Stefano who took lazy options. Leading up to the Wishart break in the second half both Galvin and Olim get up from the tackle with their backs to the attack - what do they expect will happen. U10s error!

The other problem child is AD - his rush out of the line as the 2 in player to try and snuff out the first receiver was lucicrous and allowed Wishart free reign down that edge. While the try was scored on the opposite side of the field - chalk it up to AD - the ability to recover the defensive line after such a break and quick ptb was way too much. Not his only poor decision - move him to the wing in defence and he isn't as much of a liabilty. Give him a bit of a roaming licence in attack.

Up and in defence with 12 men - why, why, why do we persist with it in our 20. Sezer pushes forward, Bateman further and Staines even further up and they simply run in or kick in behind. We have push forward and then slide and scramble. We dont use an umberella defence outside of our 20 - why complicate things. Morris needs to give himself a couple fo uppercuts - two weeks in arow we have leaked 12 points to the exact same thing.

Matamua - I watched him closely. He works hard and even though the stats don't show it he is busy. He does not take on the line and plays the ball as a receiver. I don't see him as a liability - but he needs to add more to the attack. Given the forwards laid a reasonable platform he can probably be carried - but we need to find a better option in the off season.

1%ers - we were caught out a couple of times in Defence and Attack - Api, Stefano in defence a couple of times (probably gassed - especially Api) but it makes a difference. Stefano in attack on two occasions I picked up faield to make the effort. The most notable being off the Bula/Galvin kick return in the second half. Galvin starts to run sideways looking for support and our forward - most notably Stef are making no effort. There was a try on the cards had they made the effort.

On the plus side.

We stripped Melbourne for numbers for three of our tries and had players go in almost untouched. We scored 28 points gainst the competition leaders and were unlucky not to have scored 40. The two unlucky bounces against Sezer were real chances- 90% of the time the ball would run on and he scores, or goes very close to scoring.

We are starting to pull it together in attack - the signs are finally starting to show.

It is certainly not rainbows and butterflies and we have a lot of work to do - but it is possible for us to finish the seaon on a bit of a high (a Wests Tigers High of "not winning the spoon").

 

[BAGNF05]

I didn't get to watch the game live as I was working. I read through this thread before watching the game tonight and as a result focussed on Matamua, Faataape and our defnesive structure (40 points leaked two weeks in a row). I was expecting to be a little demoralised leading onto the run home; however, while there are issues, there are some good signs. I think, based on our performance agaisnt the competition leaders, if we tighten up a few things we we have the ability to beat both Souths and the slimeys.

Looking at the negatives first:
Faataape was definetely outplayed by Warbrick - but he wasn't disgraced. The sin bin was poor - but clearly playing out of position on the wing. That is more of a coaching error. I think AD on the wing and Faataape in the centres is a better combination and I will explain whay a little later.

Defence - three of Melbournes tries would not have been scored if there weren't poor decisions made by individuals.

Galvin has a problem in defence - he turns in when his inside man has turned out. This is a problem on the drop off play and also if they run any trye of block. Sam F pushes out, Galvin Turns in Olam has already turned out based on what Sam F does and they run through the gap or create the overlap and run around. Galvin was burnt twice in this manner with the commentators putting it down to Sam F and Olam. The first time it was compounded by no inside pressure being applied by Api or Stefano who took lazy options. Leading up to the Wishart break in the second half both Galvin and Olim get up from the tackle with their backs to the attack - what do they expect will happen. U10s error!

The other problem child is AD - his rush out of the line as the 2 in player to try and snuff out the first receiver was lucicrous and allowed Wishart free reign down that edge. While the try was scored on the opposite side of the field - chalk it up to AD - the ability to recover the defensive line after such a break and quick ptb was way too much. Not his only poor decision - move him to the wing in defence and he isn't as much of a liabilty. Give him a bit of a roaming licence in attack.

Up and in defence with 12 men - why, why, why do we persist with it in our 20. Sezer pushes forward, Bateman further and Staines even further up and they simply run in or kick in behind. We have push forward and then slide and scramble. We dont use an umberella defence outside of our 20 - why complicate things. Morris needs to give himself a couple fo uppercuts - two weeks in arow we have leaked 12 points to the exact same thing.

Matamua - I watched him closely. He works hard and even though the stats don't show it he is busy. He does not take on the line and plays the ball as a receiver. I don't see him as a liability - but he needs to add more to the attack. Given the forwards laid a reasonable platform he can probably be carried - but we need to find a better option in the off season.

1%ers - we were caught out a couple of times in Defence and Attack - Api, Stefano in defence a couple of times (probably gassed - especially Api) but it makes a difference. Stefano in attack on two occasions I picked up faield to make the effort. The most notable being off the Bula/Galvin kick return in the second half. Galvin starts to run sideways looking for support and our forward - most notably Stef are making no effort. There was a try on the cards had they made the effort.

On the plus side.

We stripped Melbourne for numbers for three of our tries and had players go in almost untouched. We scored 28 points gainst the competition leaders and were unlucky not to have scored 40. The two unlucky bounces against Sezer were real chances- 90% of the time the ball would run on and he scores, or goes very close to scoring.

We are starting to pull it together in attack - the signs are finally starting to show.

It is certainly not rainbows and butterflies and we have a lot of work to do - but it is possible for us to finish the seaon on a bit of a high (a Wests Tigers High of "not winning the spoon").

AD in a Corey Oates type role not the silliest thing I’ve heard with our current options very weak.

 

[TSP]

The sin bin is over-used.

I’d let the ref choose 5 to 7 minutes depending on the nature of the infraction.

 

[Tucker]

It has to be remembered that whilst we did manage 5 tries, that Melbourne lineup was what you would expect from them during Origin. Very patchy, squaddies covering positions all over the field. We were pretty close to full strength. They ran 7 through us.

 

[hank37w]

On Saturday.

A. Look for your speedy fullback in support to ice a try to put you up two scores.

B. Don’t lose control of the ball in attempting to stand up on the 2nd tackle when you have a golden chance to score right on halt time.

C. Ground the ball in the corner instead of bouncing it, quality outside backs are scoring those every week.

3 game changing moments ❌❌❌

We won't mention the missed tackles. 🤣

 

[Kaito]

The sin bin is over-used.

I’d let the ref choose 5 to 7 minutes depending on the nature of the infraction.

Saw this earlier this morning. That's pretty crazy

 

[jirskyr]

Galvin has a problem in defence - he turns in when his inside man has turned out. This is a problem on the drop off play and also if they run any trye of block. Sam F pushes out, Galvin Turns in Olam has already turned out based on what Sam F does and they run through the gap or create the overlap and run around. Galvin was burnt twice in this manner with the commentators putting it down to Sam F and Olam. The first time it was compounded by no inside pressure being applied by Api or Stefano who took lazy options. Leading up to the Wishart break in the second half both Galvin and Olim get up from the tackle with their backs to the attack - what do they expect will happen. U10s error!

I agree and really illustrated badly with that Warburton try that Hughes set up. Galvin turned himself all inside and out without actually laying a glove on anyone.

It was almost like Hughes was walking in Galvin's footsteps, as if he was a kid following his dad at the beach, waiting for the fullback to arrive so he could draw and pass.

 

[tig_prmz]

I didn't say it wasn't a try-scoring opportunity, I said Faatape's infringement was firstly against a kick contest opportunity. The try scoring opportunity can only arise after the kick contest has concluded and the attacker has ended up with the ball.

The point is that no, Warbrick is not in fact catching the ball on the try line. Warbrick never touched the ball. Of course he never touched the ball because of colliding with Faatape, but Warbrick's leap was speculative and there is no attacking event in rugby league less reliable than an attempt to recover a bomb - less reliable than a pass or a grubber. In other words a bomb contest produces the lowest likelihood of you retaining possession compared with any other type of attacking play. One cannot assume, in judging a foul, that a bomb is as equal a try-scoring opportunity as interfering with a support player on a pass, or holding back a grubber chaser. They are not equivalent opportunities and 10 mins in the bin should not apply, in my opinion, to all those potential opportunities.

But as I said, I would be OK if challenges like Faatape were always deemed professional fouls and that was the standard. That any disingenuous kick defence was a professional foul. But it's clearly not the standard. I have seen 100 inappropriate kick defences and I'll see another 100 in the next few seasons, without the defender being sin-binned. Similarly you can make a very reasonable argument that any escort play is also a professional foul and should be sin-binned - it deprives the attacker of a reasonable chance of contesting a bomb.

So how is it that escorts are a penalty but not a sin-bin? What's the difference between running a player off his line and putting your body into the position where he is leaping? Will all 1-1 kick contests in future be deemed a foul play if you do not properly and genuinely contest the ball?

I feel like I have to revisit this thread in future and post any time a kick contest is penalised but not binned.

I think you answered your own question with the two bolded remarks.