What about the penalty count???

[Geo]

Damn just when you thought the stinky bait would be ignored..

 

[Tigerstruck]

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.

 

[Chicken_Faced_Killa]

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.

 

[2041]

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.

 

[Doc_Tiger]

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. :laughing:

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.

 

[Doc_Tiger]

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]

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 …...

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

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.

 

[jirskyr]

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 …...

Isn't that the ruling now? Catch pass on outside shoulder and dummy runners run to inside shoulder?

In terms of 2018 interpretation and application of obstruction, I thought Rowdy did just fine, ran a good line.

 

[happy_tiger]

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 …...

Isn't that the ruling now? Catch pass on outside shoulder and dummy runners run to inside shoulder?

In terms of 2018 interpretation and application of obstruction, I thought Rowdy did just fine, ran a good line.

But he stopped when he reached Slater and their was a bit of a gap just inside Slater

 

[Fade_To_Black]

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

100%, he needs to be called out and shamed for that pathetic dive that looked like a slide into 3rd base. Maggot of a bloke.
Surely someone on here is able to do it?

 

[Bonus]

I should be able to knock one up.

Recording the game now, so once that's done I'll pop one up if no one else has by then :smiley:

 

[goldcoast_tiger]

Does anyone think we did it deliberately, especially when they were in our 20 to stop their momentum and expansive plays .

Arhhh Yeah!
We’ve got to learn to make it less obvious though.
To be fair , I only saw it from the start of the second half , but most of the penalties against us were deserved.
All teams deliberately give away penalties near their tryline.
I don’t care if the refs keep up penalising for that, it’s a pain in the butt.

 

[Bonus]

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

100%, he needs to be called out and shamed for that pathetic dive that looked like a slide into 3rd base. Maggot of a bloke.
Surely someone on here is able to do it?

BAM!

https://imgur.com/a/j4OkI

 

[Needaname]

Does anyone think we did it deliberately, especially when they were in our 20 to stop their momentum and expansive plays .

Arhhh Yeah!
We’ve got to learn to make it less obvious though.
To be fair , I only saw it from the start of the second half , but most of the penalties against us were deserved.
All teams deliberately give away penalties near their tryline.
I don’t care if the refs keep up penalising for that, it’s a pain in the butt.

Anyone catch the Roosters Bulldogs game?
There was time when Woods was standin captain talking to the ref about being hammered for the penalty count.
The ref said it’s even after the dogs gave a couple away to allow the roosters further up field.
And woods replied it’s not they’ve given away 3 on their line that doesn’t count.
Teams, especially Melbourne and roosters will make an effort to ‘test’ the referee close to the line. The same way we managed to get 3 penalty goals to put us up a whole 6 points.
It’s deliberate and the thinking is that continually slowing the attack from the ruck frustrates the attack and ensures a greater likelihood of the attacking team getting an error.

 

[newtiger]

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 the pocket Ref that kept saying "I have a try".

 

[innsaneink]

I should be able to knock one up.

Recording the game now, so once that's done I'll pop one up if no one else has by then :smiley:

Legend!

Cheers bonus

 

[innsaneink]

I should be able to knock one up.

Recording the game now, so once that's done I'll pop one up if no one else has by then :smiley:

Legend!

Cheers bonus

 

[Tim Sheens]

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

100%, he needs to be called out and shamed for that pathetic dive that looked like a slide into 3rd base. Maggot of a bloke.
Surely someone on here is able to do it?

BAM!

https://imgur.com/a/j4OkI

Thanks, just as I expected, a dive confirmed. His dejected expressions at the end of the match were enough for me to not worry too much about this incident, plus it may have inspired Mats to his match winning charge and offload.

 

[Geo]

Cammy you shifty grub at the ground we thought it was for repeated infringement and Mats was just the unlucky one..

Now it appears he was unlucky to be on the end of a Cammy Academy Award…