2017 Brisbane Broncos Thread - we hate them for their freedom

The moga try and milf field goal were terrible calls


But the sims try is 100% right, it looks weird and it's obviously fortunate but it's just an odd lookin play that is perfectly allowed by the rules. You see guy in front of the kicker collect charge downs fairly often, sims just happen to be 2 metre's away from the try line when it happened lol

leaguegod wrote:The moga try and milf field goal were terrible calls


But the sims try is 100% right, it looks weird and it's obviously fortunate but it's just an odd lookin play that is perfectly allowed by the rules. You see guy in front of the kicker collect charge downs fairly often, sims just happen to be 2 metre's away from the try line when it happened lol

I think it was embarrassing for the game, die hards like ourselves cringed at it.

Do you cringe when guys in similar positions pick up the ball at the 50m line? We can't pick and chooose when to apply the rules just because it feels wrong

Pieman wrote:Exactly @B/L @mearcats

Those 2 calls in particular were terrible IMO.
Milf was clearly held then he chucks it out the back, you watch that in real time and its a penalty.
I thought that was pretty obviously a knock on. But again, refs too scared to make the right call when the game is on the line.

Also, what was with the Korbin sims try?

@Pieman, I can live with the Moga try but only due to the NRL's own stupidity regarding the held rule. There are some knee jerk reaction rules and or  amendments in league at the moment that just make it far to grey rather than black and white that it should be.

Point 1) the on field live call and bunkers interpretation of "conclusive evidence" to overturn that call. If you can tell me, without a shred of doubt, that the ball in the Milford try didn't grave a blade of grass then you have far better eyes than I do. I would have been happy with a no try/held up over the line call on that play and back out to play the ball (the right call IMO) but as soon as it goes to the bunker in that situation it becomes a lottery.

Point 2) All season we've seen fullbacks field the ball, come out of their own goal, lay down without a hand placed on them basically and held be called. Yet in an attacking play, the player attempting to score a try seems to be allowed to have multiple efforts at getting the ball down. I get that we gear towards the attackers favor for the pleasure of viewers, benefit of TV rights suppliers etc but we need to clean that sort of rubbish up. As far as I'm concerned, once momentum has come to a halt, you're held. Simple as that.

As for the Korbin Sims try, again, a stupid rule in the book. Due to the way that the rule is written, it allows an interpretation that makes a try like that possible. I was all for an offside call. Literally 5mt in FRONT of the line of play. However, the rule states that you cannot be within a 10mt radius. A radius opens it up to interpretation which is just stupid. No try there would have been the right call but unfortunately, the Bunnies camp and anyone else can't really Bronco bash for a rule interpretation which was (by the book at least) the correct call.

Finally, Milford field goal. Knock on for me everyday of the week. He himself has come out this morning and said he caught it (but then he would, wouldn't he?) and the ref was basically dry humping his leg he was that close and in a great position but I call bullshit. Defs a knock on. 

I think there were some calls that went against Brisbane in that game as well but I'm not going to go into that.

Honeysett wrote:

I think it was embarrassing for the game, die hards like ourselves cringed at it.

100% but... It is the rule, albeit stupid.

leaguegod wrote:Do you cringe when guys in similar positions pick up the ball at the 50m line? We can't pick and chooose when to apply the rules just because it feels wrong

Hell yeah I do. It just looks terrible. However, I can't agree more with your statement as a whole. At the end of the day, that's the rule as it is written and stands, you can't have it one way and not the other regardless of it's overall influence on the game.

leaguegod wrote:Do you cringe when guys in similar positions pick up the ball at the 50m line? We can't pick and chooose when to apply the rules just because it feels wrong

If you're in front of the kicker you're offside, the kicker should have to get in front of you or you behind the kicker for you to be involved in the play unless the other team actually gets possession. Sutton "played" at the ball with his leg.

Pieman wrote:
Milf was clearly held then he chucks it out the back, you watch that in real time and its a penalty.

Well it definitely can't be a penalty because the moment it is held up in goal the play is dead and isn't restarted until the ref blows his whistle to play the ball on the 10 metre line. While I agree it should have beencalled as held long before the ball came out to Moga, we should have still kept the ball. No reason why the referee can't call held and then still go to the video ref to confirm if it has been grounded. It astounds me how the referees give so much time in those instances.

Honeysett wrote:

If you're in front of the kicker you're offside, the kicker should have to get in front of you or you behind the kicker for you to be involved in the play unless the other team actually gets possession. Sutton "played" at the ball with his leg.

That's a pretty radical change to the rule though. It would mean someone couldn't make a tackle either if they're in front of the kicker since they would be offside by your definition so can't get involved in the play.

Dip wrote:

That's a pretty radical change to the rule though. It would mean someone couldn't make a tackle either if they're in front of the kicker since they would be offside by your definition so can't get involved in the play.

Unless the other team has possession.

You can't be involved in the attacking play if you're in front of the kicker unless he plays you onside.

Dip wrote:

Well it definitely can't be a penalty because the moment it is held up in goal the play is dead and isn't restarted until the ref blows his whistle to play the ball on the 10 metre line. While I agree it should have beencalled as held long before the ball came out to Moga,  we should have still kept the ball.  No reason why the referee can't call held and then still go to the video ref to confirm if it has been grounded.  It astounds me how the referees give so much time in those instances.

The referee was ruling on the Milford put down, that was it. That's why it should have been no try because in the refs opinion he got the ball down. The Bunker went further than what was asked and ruled on a play that should have been called. I think that's the issue.

Honeysett wrote:

Unless the other team has possession.

You can't be involved in the attacking play if you're in front of the kicker unless he plays you onside.

So if you're a metre in front of a kicker who gets tackled as the put in a clearing kick, but make the tackle on the fullback after he runs 20m, you can make the tackle but not pick it up if he drops it in the tackle? That sounds even worse to me.

Honeysett wrote:

The referee was ruling on the Milford put down, that was it. That's why it should have been no try because in the refs opinion he got the ball down. The Bunker went further than what was asked and ruled on a play that should have been called. I think that's the issue.

That's apart of the bunkers job. after deciding that it was no try the ball had come free, they had to determine how and what the course of action was. They do it all the time. Is it ball free and play on (which was what they ruled) or should play have been called back as tackle complete and play the ball at the 10mt line? Clearly they decided that the play wan't completed and therefore, with the ball coming free it was play on.

The bunker will always go further then they are asked to do as that is their responsibility. That's not the problem. The problem is the wrong call was made.

Honeysett wrote:

The referee was ruling on the Milford put down, that was it. That's why it should have been no try because in the refs opinion he got the ball down. The Bunker went further than what was asked and ruled on a play that should have been called. I think that's the issue.

https://youtu.be/xjuX4OMgDnw

That's completely incorrect. On this link between 1:30 and 1:50 after the video ref says they have a decision and go to the board, you can hear Ashley Klein say "wait, was the tackle complete because I didn't blow it until the next guy scores the try?".

And at 0:10 you can also hear a ref say "that's backwards" about the pass before he calls for the video ref, so they obviously thought he wasn't held either (which I disagree with, but it's the interpretation they've had for about 3 years now).

Dip wrote:

So if you're a metre in front of a kicker who gets tackled as the put in a clearing kick, but make the tackle on the fullback after he runs 20m, you can make the tackle but not pick it up if he drops it in the tackle? That sounds even worse to me.

I'm not sure if it's my explanation or you're not grasping what I'm saying. In your example he could make the tackle because the other team has possession. Sticking a leg out and it ricocheting isn't possession in my change of the rules. New set of 6 sure but you're still offside.

Dip wrote:

https://youtu.be/xjuX4OMgDnw

That's completely incorrect. On this link between 1:30 and 1:50 after the video ref says they have a decision and go to the board, you can hear Ashley Klein say "wait, was the tackle complete because I didn't blow it until the next guy scores the try?".

Well forgive me for that, when I saw it go up I thought he only ruled saying "I have a try just see if Milford does ground the ball"

Honeysett wrote:

Well forgive me for that, when I saw it go up I thought he only ruled saying "I have a try just see if Milford does ground the ball"

In fairness that's what he does say at the time he sends it to the bunker.

Honeysett wrote:

I'm not sure if it's my explanation or you're not grasping what I'm saying. In your example he could make the tackle because the other team has possession. Sticking a leg out and it ricocheting isn't possession in my change of the rules. New set of 6 sure but you're still offside.

Fair enough, though I'm sure that will also have problems in determining  how long you have to have it for to be classed as possession. Is somebody who catches a bomb and juggles it or loses it as they hit the ground "in possession"?  In my opinion last night showed the refs don't know when a player is held, so I don't know  how good they are going determining  when possession occurs.  Sometimes  you just have to accept that the one try that looks ugly but happens once every 10 years  is not really enough of an issue to change the rules. It's a bit like when somebody passes back and it bounces off someone's head or knee or something other than their hands because they did an air swing.  If you're so unco that you missed the ball with your hands you shouldn't be rewarded with a try, but it happens so infrequently it's not worth a rule change.

Honeysett wrote:

I'm not sure if it's my explanation or you're not grasping what I'm saying. In your example he could make the tackle because the other team has possession. Sticking a leg out and it ricocheting isn't possession in my change of the rules. New set of 6 sure but you're still offside.

Pretty sure that's exactly what they rule. That you have played at the ball and are therefore deemed to have possession regardless of the brevity. Sutton had possession, lost it and Sims regained. Play on.

Mearcats wrote:

Pretty sure that's exactly what they rule. That you have played at the ball and are therefore deemed to have possession regardless of the brevity. Sutton had possession, lost it and Sims regained. Play on.

The rule itself does not refer to possession at all. Rule 3B in section 14 says an off side player is placed on side if an opponent touches the ball without retaining it.

Dip wrote:
The rule itself does not refer to possession at all. Rule 3B in section 14 says an off side player is placed on side if an opponent touches the ball without retaining it.

But the rule does not clarify whether by touching the ball they are deemed to have had possession. I'm not arguing with the point (which is now moot) and for the most part I agree with what you are saying (especially regarding the fact that this is a case of extremes and therefore not worth a look in regarding a rule change). I am, however, stating (and have been all morning) that the issues we faced with last nights game are in no small part due to a lack of clarity surrounding rules.