2017 Brisbane Broncos Thread - we hate them for their freedom

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.

Yeah I know what the rules are mate, what I'm saying is you shouldn't be played onside when you're offside by a deflection when someone sticks their leg out. If he was inside the 10m it would have been offside, why not just make it offside completely?

Honeysett wrote:

Yeah I know what the rules are mate, what I'm saying is you shouldn't be played onside when you're offside by a deflection when someone sticks their leg out. If he was inside the 10m it would have been offside, why not just make it offside completely?

100% agree. Just a stoopid rule.

The look on Korbin's face was great though.

dasherhalo wrote:The look on Korbin's face was great though.

The "fuck I shouldn't have done that... oh wait... it's OK. Yep. I'm a genius" I've done that many a time.

Honeysett wrote:

The "fuck I shouldn't have done that... oh wait... it's OK. Yep. I'm a genius" I've done that many a time.

Could have also have been the "If I was still playing for Newcastle I probably would have dropped that cold over the line, I've learn't how to catch since I switched clubs" look.

Or, "Because I play for newcastle, I would have been penalised for being offside without the ref even seeing it, because the teams that battle never the good calls".

Pieman wrote:Or, "Because I play for newcastle, I would have been penalised for being offside without the ref even seeing it, because the teams that battle never the good calls".

Maybe. Either way we both agree that that if he was still with Newcastle, he wouldn't have scored for one reason or the other.

For the record, I really like the aggression and game that Korbin and Ashton brought to the Broncos. I just don't want either of them having to catch a ball in the last 5 minutes of a close game. Other 75 minutes, they're brilliant.

Mearcats wrote:
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.

It was obv a knock-on... But.

When Souths #14 goes for the charge down he runs right in front of Klein, so he can't see shit. The replay that the NRL has on their Twitter shows this view on the second replay.

The pocket ref is super-inexperienced and is only really there to get some game time and hold the mark. I dont think he made a call all game, so he can be forgiven for keeping the whistle away. Plus, the same replay above also shows the knock-on from behind and its actually looks almost alright from behind... Ugly, but its not as clear as the front on view, which no ref had.

This wasn't really a case of the refs ballsing up or being biased one way or the other, rather just a perfect storm of luck that fell the Broncos way.

Yeah I can live with the refs not picking that up in real time. Could easily be confused with having picked it up on the half volley, or having got his left hand on it as well in time. Agree that it's more a case of us getting lucky with that one. Can't see why Archer would say it wasn't a knock on to be honest. You can't say he had gripped the ball with his right hand.

Another example of what the video ref can and can't do though. If you can go to the video ref they should be able to call on things like that. Given how close it was to the cross-bar, the refs could be excused for going to the video ref just to check it was inside the upright. It would have been terrible had they gone to the video ref, saw it was a knock on but still gave the field goal.

The no ruling on forward passes rule is terrible as well. A couple of times this year Archer has said that refs were wrong not calling a forward pass. He made this call after seeing the replay. The same replays the bunker sees but can rule on, because allegedly the replays don't always give a good perspective. Except when Archer is reviewing forward passes the next day. Those same replays give a good enough perspective to him to determine if the pass went forward or not.

While I genuinely feel a bit sorry for Souths fans, I am a bit over how much they are going on with the "it cost us the game" complaints. Nothing to say if Milf played the ball when held up they wouldn't have scored next set. Or if the knock on was called that they wouldn't have won in extra time. I think the Broncos were the much stronger team in the last 10-15 minutes so I'd be surprised had they not scored if they were still behind.

NRL giving the Broncos given another free pass to win the comp and they still can't do it. Shut em down and move the franchise to Port Moresby

Any rules gurus here? This is the way I saw it: he took the ball in his right hand. There was never separation, but the ball touched the ground whilst in his possession, and when it came back up off the ground, he added his left hand, making it a two handed hold. In my view, he never lost control of the ball, but he definitely let the ball touch the ground after taking possession.

IF that's the case (I'm not looking for an argument, there's been enough), is that a knock on?

Cheers

No Worries wrote:NRL giving the Broncos given another free pass to win the comp and they still can't do it. Shut em down and move the franchise to Port Moresby

No, that's not enough to take the spotlight off the Tigers. Sorry, try again soon.

dasherhalo wrote:Any rules gurus here? This is the way I saw it: he took the ball in his right hand. There was never separation, but the ball touched the ground whilst in his possession, and when it came back up off the ground, he added his left hand, making it a two handed hold. In my view, he never lost control of the ball, but he definitely let the ball touch the ground after taking possession.

IF that's the case (I'm not looking for an argument, there's been enough), is that a knock on?

Cheers

You can't use the ground (or an opposition player) to assist you in securing the ball. If you have it securely, you can drag the ball along the ground for all it matters.

Cheers

good to see the refs sucking donkey dick already. 4 mins, didnt take them long.

Broncos losing the penalty count & just had 2 shit calls go against them - scrum win taken off them and Wallace chargedown not reseting the tackle count.

Good thing were up 28-0. Imagine how much wed be dominating if the refs gave us the odd call.

Have to go back and have a look, but the 10 felt skinny tonight.

ryno_ wrote:

It was obv a knock-on... But.

When Souths #14 goes for the charge down he runs right in front of Klein, so he can't see shit. The replay that the NRL has on their Twitter shows this view on the second replay.

The pocket ref is super-inexperienced and is only really there to get some game time and hold the mark. I dont think he made a call all game, so he can be forgiven for keeping the whistle away. Plus, the same replay above also shows the knock-on from behind and its actually looks almost alright from behind... Ugly, but its not as clear as the front on view, which no ref had.

This wasn't really a case of the refs ballsing up or being biased one way or the other, rather just a perfect storm of luck that fell the Broncos way.

Agree @ryno_, never expected the refs to pick it up. It was only in slow mo that I knew for certain that it was a knock on, though I thought it was in real time during the game. 

We really do expect a lot out of our officials. When you take into consideration the speed of the game nowadays it's pretty unfair to be so judgmental. But then, when the video ref COULD override on things we were all screaming blue murder. Best case scenario we do one of two things, go to a challenge system where a coach can challenge a decision, or go along the lines of the NHL/NFL where we can "review the play" along with the video ref and make a call as per. In one case, the game slows down but the calls are right, in the other case you lose momentum etc but the game is called fairly. What's your opinion?

No Worries wrote:Have to go back and have a look, but the 10 felt skinny tonight.

At the ground it didn't really look like a skinny 10, but that the refs were letting the defence go early.

Mearcats wrote:
Agree @ryno_, never expected the refs to pick it up. It was only in slow mo that I knew for certain that it was a knock on, though I thought it was in real time during the game. 

We really do expect a lot out of our officials. When you take into consideration the speed of the game nowadays it's pretty unfair to be so judgmental. But then, when the video ref COULD override on things we were all screaming blue murder. Best case scenario we do one of two things, go to a challenge system where a coach can challenge a decision, or go along the lines of the NHL/NFL where we can "review the play" along with the video ref and make a call as per. In one case, the game slows down but the calls are right, in the other case you lose momentum etc but the game is called fairly. What's your opinion?

Im a massive NFL fan, so delays in a game to get the right call don't phase me. I can see how it might be difficult to force into a game without a natural stoppage after every play though... Like if the clock is still running or play isnt dead, do we let the captains stop play once a half on a whim? Or if you make only point scoring plays challengable, that draws a some what arbitrary line between a knockon on the try line and a knock on 10m out. Or if the captain wants a challenge a non-decision, but cant because the ref has played on, thats a step backwards. @Mearcats did you see any of the second grade games where they trialed the captains challenge? Work?

I think the system we have now is the best framework possible, just needs some refinement. Which is fine, the bunker is only barely a year old.