The Roosters are crowing at the prospect of winning their first minor premiership since 2004 but it could all end in tears unless coach Trent Robinson can instil some discipline in his players.
And he will need to do it with a sense of urgency.
Far too many opportunities are being handed out to opponents thanks to a steady flow of penalties against the men in red, white and blue.
Many of these penalties are frivolous – laying on the tackled player, hand on the ball, offside – but others are for over-exuberance in defence, and others for plain old grubby or illegal play.
All teams sin in the eyes of the whistle-blowers but none more than the competition favourites.
So far in the 22 premiership games, Robinson’s men have been penalised on 179 occasions, averaging a tick over eight free rides to the opposition per game.
Robinson and the players have been quizzed by media people who are told, time and again, the Roosters’ camp is ‘concerned’ about the trend and that ‘something must be sorted out’ with the match officials.
But nothing ever happens.
Last Monday’s game against the struggling Tigers produced an 11-7 penalty count against the Roosters.
Fair enough, the competition leaders were always going to run up a huge score with their superior attack but if they think they can give the likes of Melbourne, Souths or Manly that many leg-ups in the finals, they should think again.
These teams have a habit of scoring points in the sets that follow penalties.
They will eagerly accept any gratuities from the Roosters who could ruin their great season because they are seriously lacking in the discipline department.
Stats show there are a number of serial offenders in the Rooster line-up.
Halves James Maloney and Mitchell Pearce, hooker Jake Friend and winger Shaun Kenny Dowall have given away penalties repeatedly and nothing seems to be happening, as the team keeps scoring tries and keeps on winning.
It will be no use blaming the refs if Easts go crashing out of the competition with straight sets finals losses.
To me, there seems to be a blatant problem here with indiscipline.
If not, then it must be a veiled form of cheating the system by mauling the opposition in a bid to slow down their play and stifle their momentum.
steve d
Guest
totally agree,, thats my worry, the nrl want souhs v storm in th GF
mushi
Guest
Just because you looked at it doesn't mean you understood it.
mushi
Guest
Why the hell would any one read “slow the play down,deny momentum and protect the members of your backline” and think that I am saying because the backline is defensively weak the team is defensively strong? Now I would have thought the average functioning human being with some knowledge of rugby league would think “best missed tackles ratio, nor restricting their opposition to just 7 offloads per game” would be natural by-product of slowing the play and denying momentum. And that teams which “protect” the weaker members of their backline are able to defend better. This isn’t cutting edge stuff right. Or do you think that comes from providing 12 metre hit ups and allowing fast play of the balls with your opponent attacking a retreating line that contains guys who have a history of not being great defensively. I am sorry I didn’t spell out the connection before, I unfortunately dramatically overestimated you.
Pot Stirrer
Guest
Did you watch Sterlo last nigh, Bennets wrong. The majority of the penalies are for teams comng out of thier own end ?
Knight Vision
Guest
Stats are stats DMW , I think someone such as Bennett knows a little more than you and I about what teams do to win games. The Stats don't lie.
DMW
Guest
So the best defence stat's in the league for over 40 years is not due to having the best missed tackles ratio, nor restricting their opposition to just 7 offloads per game. No, as you say... put it down to fielding a back-line that couldn't tackle its way out of a wet paper bag and the team overall conceding penalties the minute the first whistle is blown.
mushi
Guest
you slow the play down,deny momentum and protect the members of your backline that are as defensively stout as week old celery.
DMW
Guest
Opposition to get off tackled Roosters players quicker also... reimplement quick taps again. I'd like to see that!
Realist
Guest
++1 anyone who thinks the roosters are over the cap usually support another club jealous of our recruitment....
Trent
Guest
Wayne Bennett hit the nail on the head that its not a discipline issue but more of a " slow the play down and set our defensive line" tactic. Refs do not allow the quick tap, why? It gives the penalized team a chance to get reset and to regroup, sure the attacking team gets 6 more tackles, but it's against a regrouped and structured defense. Now if we allow the quick tap you'll see the likes of the roosters and storm cut down some of their persieved ill discipline. As more tries will be scored due to the attacking team keeping the forward momentum. With 2 refs on the field there is no reason why the quick tap can't be re implemented. But I'd also like to see the likes of Watmough and Ennius start to get penalized for milking. That's right a penalty for acting like a goose and slowing your own momentum, that way we may get some of these soccer tactics which have keeps into the game out
Wozza
Guest
Haven't the storm ,bulldogs and the Broncos all been done for cap breaches ???? Here we go here we go here we goooooo.....bring on the mighty roosters and Jay C can post all the sooky roosters hate he likes after we win the gf and are deemed to be under the cap.....
DMW
Guest
And it wouldn't surprise me either if the Rooster's topped the count for most attacking penalties conceded either. At either end of the park whether in the first, middle or last third of the field. Running north or south, in afternoon games or on Monday nights. And as to me "not getting it", I actually look at the game statistics and evidence. You?
DMW
Guest
Please grace those of us interested with what you see as the benefit the Roosters receive when conceding as many as 3 penalties in the first 5mins (6 occasions, 2013) or 5 penalties in first 10mins (3 occasions, 2013)?
Knight Vision
Guest
an extract from Brad Walters article in the Brisbane Times makes for interesting reading "According to Sports Data statistics, Manly and the Gold Coast (both 40), Souths, the Bulldogs and the Dragons (all 34) and the Storm and the Roosters* (both 32) have conceded the most defensive penalties in their own end of the field." No surprises that these teams also make up the top 4 in the competition, add Gold Coast and Bulldogs and they make up 6 of the teams in the top 8. He also went on to write "Bennett, whose Newcastle team has conceded the second lowest number of defensive and nullifying penalties (both 17) this season, warned that the tactic was set to have an impact on the upcoming finals series."
DMW
Guest
Nice of you to set the record straight. The Roosters v Knights was a game I did not attend nor see on replay, but I heard second hand that it was a 50/50 call. If this is in fact the case then I'll put to you that this is the first 50/50 call to go the way of the Roosters all season.
Knight Vision
Guest
you fail to understand that giving away penalties IS part of their game plan.
Doggies Bro
Guest
Your right but the refs need to send people of for the deliberate infringement when a team is "likely" to score. Even if 5 mins would stop the stupid penalties inside the opponents 20 - 30
chris n
Guest
DMW I will admit I have not watched many roosters game this year I am a Newcastle supporter and I know they deployed this tactic in the game they played against us and I was assuming with there high penalty in most games they were also doing it against other teams. Again with Melbourne I have not watched at lot of there games but it was evident in the game against us and souths coach had complained about the same thing the previous week so I can only assume they are doing it in other games aswell.
Bunny Lord
Guest
What's wrong with that? (I happen to be a passionate Rabbitohs fan also)
DMW
Guest
I don't know if what you say is accurate or not in the case of the Storm, but I am interested in the evidence against the Roosters that you've based your statement on.