State of Origin 2017 Series

leaguegod wrote:Gillett's kick wasn't actually that bad to be honest, i couldn't believe he gave that penalty away tho, all he had to was wait there for a second and then wrap up teddy.

it was a dumb gift that is something we have done to many times in the past

I was seriously surprised how good it was!
Still, he never should've kicked it.

Yep, QLD played like NSW have done too many times.
I said to my mate last night it was like watching the Warriors. No QLDer wants that.

Positive is that we know they can play a lot better and there's a lot to improve on. :/

Peats ran for 8.1km - over 80 minutes that's 108m a minute. That's just insane!

Great debut!

9 went overboard using during the game, but some of those GPS stats were pretty damn fascinating after the game

Honeysett wrote:Peats ran for 8.1km - over 80 minutes that's 108m a minute. That's just insane!

Great debut!

Probably about what I run over a game of ultimate but I'm not tackling or being tackled!
Gun. Hopefully he'll stick around as NSW hooker for a while.

leaguegod wrote:9 went overboard using during the game, but some of those GPS stats were pretty damn fascinating after the game

The heat map thing is pointless rubbish but the other stats are cool. Distance travelled and max speed are good commentary talking points, theyll be belting them out for game 2 & 3.

In terms of the game, Fifita and some of the other blokes were immense in attack but I really thought your defence was what won you that game.

We quite frankly didn't look like scoring and it was only a freakish bit of play that saw our only points.

I think Hayne, Graham etc. played well but some of their attack was made to look good because of the speed of the game and the fact we were basically ground out of the contest.

Clearly no changes for the Blues.

For QLD, I think call's for some of the players are premature.

JT will come into the side at Milfs expense (despite playing really well IMO) and I think we may find a spot for Billy.

In terms of the incidents, I think Chambers laying out Pearce was fair game and it frustrates me so much that these genuine rugby league collisions are penalised with suspension.

It can't be about teaching the players a lesson because other incidents with far more intent (e.g. Klemmer, Napa, McGuire) go unpunished and really we want them to rush in like that and shut down plays.
So, if it is about protecting players, then why is Oates not charged for his hit on Milf?

Does my head in the lack of logic.

Dip wrote:


c) The person playing the ball must use 2 hands to place the ball on the ground in order to slow down the play the ball.

If you slow down the play the ball, you reduce the importance of wrestling. If you reduce line speed in the defensive line, I think you get more actual football than hit ups. Ruck Infringements should only result in a scrum/changeover, or a tap penalty rather than a kick for the sideline or goal as well. That's too much of a penalty IMO, and is the reason why refs are reluctant to blow penalties.

I agree with the sentiment but IMO with the 2 hand thing, I reckon that would encourage even more wrestling.
Because it would be easier for the defenders to do it - so they would do it more to slow the ruck down even more.

How far do players usually run in a game? or hookers in general?
I have no context for it so I cant say whether its good or not?? I mean, he had like 1 run in the game, so he did a lot of chasing the ruck to get to the play the ball. I would love to see what an 80min hooker runs in a normal game.

OZ there was no way the chambers one was incidental contact. It was high as fuck, direct shoulder on head.

I agree the ones with more intent should be punished more. for sure.

The milf and oates thing - was an accident? Unintentional collision. Chambers on pearce - a dangerous careless intentional tackle that went wrong.

If a player intentionally tackled his team mate, and head highed him or what ever - he would prob be charged, unless there is something in the rules about incidents being on opposition players. He would prob be sacked anyway.

the biggest issue i have with the chambers charge is that if pearce gets up and plays on, we never hear anything more of it. its a common occurrence in our game where the result of the play seems to be more an important then actual act which i disagree with

leaguegod wrote:the biggest issue i have with the chambers charge is that if pearce gets up and plays on, we never hear anything more of it. its a common occurrence in our game where the result of the play seems to be more an important then actual act which i disagree with

Is the case with many meany incidents in rugby league
including punching

chambers cops a fine, the rule is that your 3rd minor charge is to result in a 1 game suspension not a fine, storm argued that at the time of being charged he had not been found guilty(or plead guilty) so hadn't been guilty 3 times, therefore the NRL had to offer the fine due to the wording in the rules


well played storm but another case of NRL looking like amateurs there

leaguegod wrote:chambers cops a fine, the rule is that your 3rd minor charge is to result in a 1 game suspension not a fine, storm argued that at the time of being charged he had not been found guilty(or plead guilty) so hadn't been guilty 3 times, therefore the NRL had to offer the fine due to the wording in the rules


well played storm but another case of NRL looking like amateurs there

Surprised the storm didnt just cop the 1 game ban and reset the 3-minor-charge counter. They are only playing the knights this week and Y. Tonumapia would adequately do the job against that shambles of a team.

does the minor charge reset ? that would seem rather stupid to me, i would think every minor charge following 3 would be points based for the rest of the season

ryno_ wrote:

Surprised the storm didnt just cop the 1 game ban and reset the 3-minor-charge counter. They are only playing the knights this week and Y. Tonumapia would adequately do the job against that shambles of a team.

I nominate this for post of the year, because you said the Storm are 'playing' the Knights, and not 'versing' them.

I tip my hat to you, good sir.

Pieman wrote:

OZ there was no way the chambers one was incidental contact. It was high as fuck, direct shoulder on head.

I agree the ones with more intent should be punished more. for sure.

The milf and oates thing - was an accident? Unintentional collision. Chambers on pearce - a dangerous careless intentional tackle that went wrong.

If a player intentionally tackled his team mate, and head highed him or what ever - he would prob be charged, unless there is something in the rules about incidents being on opposition players. He would prob be sacked anyway.

Pieman your deadset idiocy never fails to surprise me.

Of course it was incidental, the bloke shut in like a good defender does and the two collided, it's fucking as simple as that.

My point is that collisions happen (even amongst teammates), just fucking accept it NRL because charging these blokes will not prevent it happening.

They know suspending these blokes is a meaningless and clumsy attempt at a risk mitigation measure, which is why they've had to bring in the fine system but that is merely a reactive fix to a shit rule.
Really, they need to go away and do some study and risk and safety analysis because their efforts are currently amatuer, if not incompetent.

leaguegod wrote:does the minor charge reset ? that would seem rather stupid to me, i would think every minor charge following 3 would be points based for the rest of the season

The way it's worded does sound like the reset is at season's end not after a fine.

NRL Media Release wrote:Players who are charged with three or more offences during the same season will not be eligible to accept a financial penalty. In those circumstances, offences will be converted to a base penalty of 100 demerit points.

No Worries wrote:

The way it's worded does sound like the reset is at season's end not after a fine.

yeah thats the way i thought it would be, chambers didn't waste much time getting there lol

Oz Sport Mad wrote:

Pieman your deadset idiocy never fails to surprise me.

Of course it was incidental, the bloke shut in like a good defender does and the two collided, it's fucking as simple as that.

My point is that collisions happen (even amongst teammates), just fucking accept it NRL because charging these blokes will not prevent it happening.

They know suspending these blokes is a meaningless and clumsy attempt at a risk mitigation measure, which is why they've had to bring in the fine system but that is merely a reactive fix to a shit rule.
Really, they need to go away and do some study and risk and safety analysis because their efforts are currently amatuer, if not incompetent.

He has to take some duty of care to not hit pearce in the head. He didnt do that. He intended to tackle him, and hit him in the head with his shoulder. Its a high tackle, nothing incidental about it what so ever. He has the opportunity to get lower and hit him properly, he didnt, so he deserves the suspension - or what ever punishments they dish out these days

Your point is wrong - its not an incidental collision. Its a tackle that is high and careless, reckless, all that stuff.

Head clashes are incidental.
Impactful Shoulders to the head in the process of making a tackle (i.e. a high tackle) are not incidental.

If you cant get through your head, which you clearly have never been able to and never will be able to - you are an absolute lost cause.

Milchcow wrote:

I nominate this for post of the year, because you said the Storm are 'playing' the Knights, and not 'versing' them.

I tip my hat to you, good sir.

I should have said "turning up" against tbh.

leaguegod wrote:does the minor charge reset ? that would seem rather stupid to me, i would think every minor charge following 3 would be points based for the rest of the season

Yeah fair point if it doesnt. Still, barely seems worth the storm fussing about when he could probably use the break anyway.

Pieman wrote:

Is the case with many meany incidents in rugby league
including punching

But not including a chicken wing that puts a guy out for 3-4 weeks.

Dip wrote:

But not including a chicken wing that puts a guy out for 3-4 weeks.

I was thinking exactly the same thing. Guys come off all the time with tweaks and bumps and are right the next week so even if Myles leaves the field, I don't think so. But would the MRC's decision been different if the extent of the injury was known at the time of the review ? Probably. I think it's not so much the outcome (because as above it isn't always known) but the visual impact of the incident which is dictating who or what goes to the judiciary.