- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Roar Rookie
Joined July 2019
0
Views
0
Published
11
Comments
Published
Comments
Mary, what Joey is asking for is consistant interpretation of the rules from refs, while still having a “feel” for the game. You’re being too literal. And that’s where a lot of the refereeing problems stem from…being too literal. For example, in a collision sport like league, many “shoulder charges” are NOT a shoulder charge but the player protecting themself from the impending collision, which puts them between a rock and a hard place…they either have to pull out of the tackle and let the team down or risk serious injury by exposing their ribs by ensuring their arm is out. That’s an area where refs don’t seem to have a “feel” for what’s occurring in front of them and are being too literal with rules. The shoulder charge rule stems from when players were using their shoulder to hit the chest of the opposing player, risking serious injury to the players’ sternum. But now, any use of the shoulder with the arm tucked in is deemed a shoulder charge, even when it’s shoulder-to-shoulder as was the case last year with Billy Slater saving a try with his shoulder…well what was he supposed to do? Watch a try being scored against his team?!? No, he knocked the guy over the sideline as was expected by his team, coach and fans. Frequently, the arm is tucked in as protection from the collision, but the way the game is refereed, only attacking players can protect themselves, not defending players, which is just plain rediculous. Context is what is missing in the refs having a “feel” for the situation they are ruling on. So they are literal with the rules instead.
Joey's ref criticism is absurd
The knock-on rule has become a real frustration, with just about any dropped ball being deemed a knock-on. Refs are under fire, rightly, as they don’t seem to understand the rule…at least that’s the impression they give to the audience with poor decisions about this occurring every weekend in every game. I don’t have issue with the double movement, I believe they get that one right far more often than not. But knock-ons seem to be gotten wrong more often than right.
Scrums…what a waste of time! Revert back to scrums being formed to compete for the ball or just get rid of them completely. They won’t throw the ball in from the sideline as Union does that, and they won’t bounce the ball or throw it up as Aussie Rules does that. So we have this stupid facade of a scrum whereby you don’t compete for the ball…well, just hand the ball over to the other side, as it amounts to the same thing anyway! And get more ex-players involved with decision making and rule making rather than wannabe beureucrats that never played, or were never picked to play when they were at school. That alone is a huge problem.
Proposed NRL rule changes fail to address the real problem
For me, it was clear that the tackle was accidental, warranting a penalty for being somewhat careless, but I’m unsure about a send-off, only because it was accidental. If purposeful, a send-off is very appropriate. I feel sorry for George Burgess, whose finger landed in the opponent’s eye (though admittedly, it stayed there too), in contrast to MaGuire whose fingers searched for the eye to gouge…twice! I view the intent more serious than an accidental occurrence, so for me, it’s MaGuire that warrants the more severe penalty in contrast to the others. Gus made an excellent point about Morgan who was concussed by friendly fire…no outcry, no penalty, no send-off because accidents between team-mates is acceptable, but accidents between opposing players seems to be penalized rather than understood for what it is.
Was the Cotric incident yet another false dawn for the send off?
I thought his performance was solid. His defense was great, but I noticed whenever he made a run, he was unsupported. He played his role, which was to take a backward step from Jimmy and let Jimmy call the shots. Both were stifled in their kicking game by Qld’s excellent attacking defense. We won, that’s what’s important. Congrats to Freddy and the entire squad!
How do you rate Mitchell Pearce's Origin 3 performance?
Insider,
Fair point. There are lots of games I’ve watched that suggest it’s just “sport-o-tainment”…the Broncos last year should have finished 8-10 points lower on the ladder than they did, from ref assistance.
NRL expansion: What the NRL should do
Crusher tackles: this is a relatively new phenomenon, basically caused by players backing into tackles, forcing a defender to be behind and reaching around to protect an off-load. Well, it’s the attacker putting themselves into a vulnerable position, but it’s the defender that’s penalized. I suggest this…if you reverse into a tackle, you can’t off-load, that then takes the onus off the defender to reach around and protect the ball and allows them to just effect the tackle and forget ball security…the crusher occurs when the ball carrier is falling to the ground, so the defender can just drop off. But while ball security is paramount, the defender is paid for ball security, stays with the falling player, inadvertently causing a crusher. Players are between a rock and a hard place with this issue, so make it simple, no off-loads allowed when reversing into a tackle.
Some subtle changes the NRL should consider
Wanna expand the game? Some clubs are just entrepreneurs and buy and sell players with no development program. I say, if you want to run a club, you MUST have a youth developmebt program. That then makes it easier for the NRL to decide who stays and who gets moved and to where. We don’t have a shortage of sporting talent in this country, but we are stretched thin having 4 codes of footy, so I believe that youth development programs are the answer for clubs and the NRL.
NRL expansion: What the NRL should do
True. Being next to Jimmy Maloney I think will be comfortable for Pearce. Good luck to them!
Nathan Cleary ruled out of Origin decider, and yep, Mitchell Pearce is his replacement
The Storm’s forward pack is still strong, while the Dragons have been decimated. Storm to win with Cam Smith and Brody Croft weaving the magic. Luke Keary’s return, partnering Cronk will be too good for the Tigers, Roosters to win comfortably. Knights over the Warriors, though I’m concerned about Klemmer’s absence for the Knights. Should be a close one. Sharks to further embarrass the Broncos and Seibold.
The Roar’s NRL expert tips and predictions: Round 16
I’m actually concerned about Mitchell Pearce being selected. I know he’s been playing like a demon this year, but he was playing like that when he first got the Origin call, and was lacklustre, so got dropped like a bag of spuds. While with the Roosters, he was lacklustre during finals. I hate to suggest this, but he’s not a big game player, but has been 1st class at club level. I hope I’m wrong, but his history in big games is poor, so I’m skeptical about an Origin call, particularly a decider. I’d leave Wade Graham filling-in for Cleary, and bring back Latrell Mitchell for Wade Graham’s spot…I think Latrell has got his head together again, his last game was solid, not dynamic, but solid.
Nathan Cleary ruled out of Origin decider, and yep, Mitchell Pearce is his replacement
Go figure! As soon as Latrell hooks up with Anthony Mundine, the guy who could have become a rugby league legend but chose to be a 3rd rate boxer for better money, Latrell’s on-field performances go downhill while his financial demands go uphill. Why am I not surprised? It doesn’t matter what career you’re in, focus on the skills and your performance and the money will follow. But focus on the money and the career suffers. Latrell needs to pull his head out of his wallet and rid himself of Mundine and the other hangers-on of his financial interests.
Code swap? Latrell Mitchell reaches out to Rugby Australia