Round 8 Game Thread *Spoilers*

[hobbo1]

Actually we are tied for sixth.

No the Knights are on 9 pts, we’re on 8 pts.

No, Knights are on 11 and in fourth place.

Two teams tied on 10 for fifth.

Four teams tied on 8 for sixth.

We are 8th
It all goes on points conceded F/A

Only in your eyes - F/A only comes into play at the end of the season.

I like you Russ but seriously it doesn’t work like that mate ...
Look at the ladder ?

We are 8th !
We’ve conceded just one more point than the Sharks .


 

[mike]

Actually we are tied for sixth.

No the Knights are on 9 pts, we’re on 8 pts.

No, Knights are on 11 and in fourth place.

Two teams tied on 10 for fifth.

Four teams tied on 8 for sixth.

We are 8th
It all goes on points conceded F/A

Only in your eyes - F/A only comes into play at the end of the season.

We are 8th:

 

[hobbo1]

Actually we are tied for sixth.

No the Knights are on 9 pts, we’re on 8 pts.

No, Knights are on 11 and in fourth place.

Two teams tied on 10 for fifth.

Four teams tied on 8 for sixth.

We are 8th
It all goes on points conceded F/A

Only in your eyes - F/A only comes into play at the end of the season.

We are 8th:

Russell thinks he’s playing Bingo or Keno
?

 

[Needaname]

When did they change it to points conceded? I thought they divided ties points based off points for?

 

[TYGA]

Does anyone expect Jayden Sua to be suspended for his shoulder charge.
Thought they were a minimum of 1 week regardless?

No he’s a Souths player. Souths, Easts, Parra, Penrith, Storm, Broncos get off everything usually.

 

[mike]

When did they change it to points conceded? I thought they divided ties points based off points for?

It’s points differential. ie your for-your against. Has been that way as long as I can remember, but that’s not saying much as I can’t remember what I had for breakfast.

 

[JC99]

Massive game next week, we’re tied with Rabbitohs and there’s a good chance Canberra and sharks both lose. A win puts as 2 points ahead of ninth and we could jump to 6th again.

Rabbitohs haven’t impressed me at all but with all our injuries it’ll be hard. We should be able to play with more energy and effort than them though they’ve looked slow

 

[Needaname]

When did they change it to points conceded? I thought they divided ties points based off points for?

It’s points differential. ie your for-your against. Has been that way as long as I can remember, but that’s not saying much as I can’t remember what I had for breakfast.

I know that, I mean when the points differential is tied also. Thought it was arranged based on attack not defence.
Doesn’t make sense if the rest of the table is based on Wins and losses, you would think two team on even differential the team who has scored more points would be higher.

 

[hobbo1]

When did they change it to points conceded? I thought they divided ties points based off points for?

It’s points differential. ie your for-your against. Has been that way as long as I can remember, but that’s not saying much as I can’t remember what I had for breakfast.

I know that, I mean when the points differential is tied also. Thought it was arranged based on attack not defence.
Doesn’t make sense if the rest of the table is based on Wins and losses, you would think two team on even differential the team who has scored more points would be higher.

I always thought it went on points for and not points against but my screen shot proves otherwise..

 

[mike]

When did they change it to points conceded? I thought they divided ties points based off points for?

It’s points differential. ie your for-your against. Has been that way as long as I can remember, but that’s not saying much as I can’t remember what I had for breakfast.

I know that, I mean when the points differential is tied also. Thought it was arranged based on attack not defence.
Doesn’t make sense if the rest of the table is based on Wins and losses, you would think two team on even differential the team who has scored more points would be higher.

Doh. Sorry.

 

[Needaname]

When did they change it to points conceded? I thought they divided ties points based off points for?

It’s points differential. ie your for-your against. Has been that way as long as I can remember, but that’s not saying much as I can’t remember what I had for breakfast.

I know that, I mean when the points differential is tied also. Thought it was arranged based on attack not defence.
Doesn’t make sense if the rest of the table is based on Wins and losses, you would think two team on even differential the team who has scored more points would be higher.

Doh. Sorry.

All good, another poster agrees with me. Regardless of Defence wins premierships edit. the official table has always been sorted based on attacking stats as far as I can recall. That’s why I’m surprised they have sorted based on Defence.

 

[JD Tiger]

Where's the table from? There's no guarantee the people that made that app/web site are 100% with that rule. They could have gotten it wrong.

 

[mike]

Where's the table from? There's no guarantee the people that made that app/web site are 100% with that rule. They could have gotten it wrong.

I posted the one off League Live.

 

[jirskyr]

I wouldn’t call that being on your feet. We’ll agree to disagree. I’ve seen plenty of those instances ruled as an incorrect PTB because a player “hasn’t risen to his feet before placing the ball down” as the ref would say.

If he drops the ball or places it on the opposition's foot or leg, I agree, it gets called a lot as a bad PTB. If it's a regular incident-free PTB, nothing happens 9999/10000 PTB. As I said, I don't believe it's technically illegal because the rule says you must "regain your feet". Exactly what does regaining one's feet look like?

If the marker pushes the guy trying to play it, they'll get called every time.

After this discussion I keenly watched the PTB styles of all matches during the weekend, players are doing this constantly, getting up on one leg before placing the ball.

 

[Geo]

I wouldn’t call that being on your feet. We’ll agree to disagree. I’ve seen plenty of those instances ruled as an incorrect PTB because a player “hasn’t risen to his feet before placing the ball down” as the ref would say.

If he drops the ball or places it on the opposition's foot or leg, I agree, it gets called a lot as a bad PTB. If it's a regular incident-free PTB, nothing happens 9999/10000 PTB. As I said, I don't believe it's technically illegal because the rule says you must "regain your feet". Exactly what does regaining one's feet look like?

If the marker pushes the guy trying to play it, they'll get called every time.

After this discussion I keenly watched the PTB styles of all matches during the weekend, players are doing this constantly, getting up on one leg before placing the ball.

As well as rolling the ball backwards with no real attempt to touch it with the foot as long as it looks like a play the ball..

Something they cracked down on for a few weeks in 2018..

 

[Fade.To.Black]

I wouldn’t call that being on your feet. We’ll agree to disagree. I’ve seen plenty of those instances ruled as an incorrect PTB because a player “hasn’t risen to his feet before placing the ball down” as the ref would say.

If he drops the ball or places it on the opposition's foot or leg, I agree, it gets called a lot as a bad PTB. If it's a regular incident-free PTB, nothing happens 9999/10000 PTB. As I said, I don't believe it's technically illegal because the rule says you must "regain your feet". Exactly what does regaining one's feet look like?

If the marker pushes the guy trying to play it, they'll get called every time.

After this discussion I keenly watched the PTB styles of all matches during the weekend, players are doing this constantly, getting up on one leg before placing the ball.

"Getting to one's feet" must surely at least mean both feet are on the ground. Not one foot and the other leg kneeling.
There was a call of incorrect PTB near the end of the Manly game yesterday. Cannot recall it crystal-clearly (as I was half a bottle of port in at the time lol) but there was no penalty shot at goal allowed, might of just been ruled 6 again? Will have to try and catch the replay to verify what happened.

 

[hobbo1]

I wouldn’t call that being on your feet. We’ll agree to disagree. I’ve seen plenty of those instances ruled as an incorrect PTB because a player “hasn’t risen to his feet before placing the ball down” as the ref would say.

If he drops the ball or places it on the opposition's foot or leg, I agree, it gets called a lot as a bad PTB. If it's a regular incident-free PTB, nothing happens 9999/10000 PTB. As I said, I don't believe it's technically illegal because the rule says you must "regain your feet". Exactly what does regaining one's feet look like?

If the marker pushes the guy trying to play it, they'll get called every time.

After this discussion I keenly watched the PTB styles of all matches during the weekend, players are doing this constantly, getting up on one leg before placing the ball.

As well as rolling the ball backwards with no real attempt to touch it with the foot as long as it looks like a play the ball..

Something they cracked down on for a few weeks in 2018..

It’s a circus ?

 

[jirskyr]

“Getting to one’s feet” must surely at least mean both feet are on the ground. Not one foot and the other leg kneeling.
There was a call of incorrect PTB near the end of the Manly game yesterday.

Arguably yes, but the rule does not say you can only place the ball once both your feet flat are on the ground. It says you must regain your feet AND lift/place the ball AND be facing the opposition's try line AND make an attempt to roll it back.

So to my point about the Finucane one, he is robbed of the ability to regain his feet after being pushed. It's not really relevant whether or not he's got the ball on the deck already, you can't have markers pushing at the PTB.

Specific to the incorrect PTB from the Manly game, I was actually thinking about that one. DCE got called for an incorrect PTB, challenged it and it was overturned in Manly's favour. DCE played the ball EXACTLY the same way as Finucane did.

 

[jirskyr]

“Getting to one’s feet” must surely at least mean both feet are on the ground. Not one foot and the other leg kneeling.
There was a call of incorrect PTB near the end of the Manly game yesterday.

Arguably yes, but the rule does not say you can only place the ball once both your feet flat are on the ground. It says you must regain your feet AND lift/place the ball AND be facing the opposition's try line AND make an attempt to roll it back.

So to my point about the Finucane one, he is robbed of the ability to regain his feet after being pushed. It's not really relevant whether or not he's got the ball on the deck already, you can't have markers pushing at the PTB.

Specific to the incorrect PTB from the Manly game, I was actually thinking about that one. DCE got called for an incorrect PTB, challenged it and it was overturned in Manly's favour. DCE played the ball EXACTLY the same way as Finucane did.

Here is the screen shot.

 

[voice_of_reason]

“Getting to one’s feet” must surely at least mean both feet are on the ground. Not one foot and the other leg kneeling.
There was a call of incorrect PTB near the end of the Manly game yesterday.

Arguably yes, but the rule does not say you can only place the ball once both your feet flat are on the ground. It says you must regain your feet AND lift/place the ball AND be facing the opposition's try line AND make an attempt to roll it back.

So to my point about the Finucane one, he is robbed of the ability to regain his feet after being pushed. It's not really relevant whether or not he's got the ball on the deck already, you can't have markers pushing at the PTB.

Specific to the incorrect PTB from the Manly game, I was actually thinking about that one. DCE got called for an incorrect PTB, challenged it and it was overturned in Manly's favour. DCE played the ball EXACTLY the same way as Finucane did.

Here is the screen shot.

DCE challenged a knock on as opposed to an incorrect PTB.