Originally posted by mattyh
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
We weren't THAT bad, things just didn't go our way...
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by BraveTheWorld View PostThere is a lot to talk about from last night, but I really want to touch on how absolutely moronic this dropout rule is.
There is no reason to not do this. If you are ever forced into a dropout, you should always go short because there's probably a 40%-ish chance of getting the ball back. Maybe higher once players get better at it.
Watching Mitchell's horrendous kicks just dribble over the 10m is a bad look. Having to sit there and wait, and ensure you don't touch the ball like hot potato, but remain as close to it as possible - it's stupid.
I think it would much better if the kick receiving team could just grab the ball at any stage, where as the kicking team needs to wait for it to go the 10.
This would totally keep the short dropout option available, but stop those absurd examples that occur. Mitchell's second one was actually indefensible. There was no way for the kick receiving team to get the ball back with that horror bounce.
If we have to live with it then the ball should have to clear the 10 metre line on the full or a penalty is awarded to the opposition.
What we experienced last night was amateurish!
- 5 likes
Comment
-
Originally posted by BraveTheWorld View PostThere is a lot to talk about from last night, but I really want to touch on how absolutely moronic this dropout rule is.
There is no reason to not do this. If you are ever forced into a dropout, you should always go short because there's probably a 40%-ish chance of getting the ball back. Maybe higher once players get better at it.
Watching Mitchell's horrendous kicks just dribble over the 10m is a bad look. Having to sit there and wait, and ensure you don't touch the ball like hot potato, but remain as close to it as possible - it's stupid.
I think it would much better if the kick receiving team could just grab the ball at any stage, where as the kicking team needs to wait for it to go the 10.
This would totally keep the short dropout option available, but stop those absurd examples that occur. Mitchell's second one was actually indefensible. There was no way for the kick receiving team to get the ball back with that horror bounce.1985: 1 try vs Parramatta, 1 try vs Manly, 1 try vs Wests, 2 tries vs Souffs
1986: 2 tries vs Illawarra, 1 try vs Balmain, 2 tries vs Norths.
Comment
-
Originally posted by BraveTheWorld View PostThere is a lot to talk about from last night, but I really want to touch on how absolutely moronic this dropout rule is.
There is no reason to not do this. If you are ever forced into a dropout, you should always go short because there's probably a 40%-ish chance of getting the ball back. Maybe higher once players get better at it.
Watching Mitchell's horrendous kicks just dribble over the 10m is a bad look. Having to sit there and wait, and ensure you don't touch the ball like hot potato, but remain as close to it as possible - it's stupid.
I think it would much better if the kick receiving team could just grab the ball at any stage, where as the kicking team needs to wait for it to go the 10.
This would totally keep the short dropout option available, but stop those absurd examples that occur. Mitchell's second one was actually indefensible. There was no way for the kick receiving team to get the ball back with that horror bounce.
What you say about the attacking team having that option of getting the ball before it goes ten has good meritWhen you trust your television
what you get is what you got
Cause when they own the information
they can bend it all they want
John Mayer
Comment
-
Here’s a thought. Souths lost both their halves to injury. Their inexperienced half was actually replaced by a slightly less experienced half. Thus their attack suffers but not too much. Sullivan has moments of brilliance as does Latrell.
should we have won? Absolutely. These defensive blunders are killing us. As is our completion rate.
chad has to go.
Comment
-
-
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Even Stevie Wonder can see that Chad is absolute garbage in all facets of the game. He poses zero risk in attack, a man with a wooden leg would have a better kicking game and he is a total defensive liability. He just has to be dropped for us to move forward. If he's not dropped, not only will we continue to lose, but what message does that send to the young guys waiting for an opportunity?
On a separate note, can we PLEASE get rid of the biggest blight on the game, the 6 again rule. If a team commits an indiscretion regardless of their position on the field, then it should be a penalty. Apart from the shadow of manipulation by game managers (given all the betting company sponsorship, we can't advertise tobacco or alcohol companies for health reasons, but we'll promote betting companies everywhere). I also believe that 6 again is directly responsible for the sharp increase in hamstring and knee injuries. Six again keeps the ball in play much longer and as a result muscles, joints etc. become highly fatigued and become much more susceptible to injury.
Just my 2 cents worth
- 3 likes
Comment
-
Another decision i don't understand
in the first 4 minutes souths
backline movement, Dom
jumps intercepts the ball above
his head, about to catch the
ball and latrell puts his hand up
knocks it out of Doms grasp,
Dom picks up ball and takes
off...shouldve been play
on ...try to Dom...but it was given as
knock on, advantage to souths...gotta be wrong call.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Next time View PostAnother decision i don't understand
in the first 4 minutes souths
backline movement, Dom
jumps intercepts the ball above
his head, about to catch the
ball and latrell puts his hand up
knocks it out of Doms grasp,
Dom picks up ball and takes
off...shouldve been play
on ...try to Dom...but it was given as
knock on, advantage to souths...gotta be wrong call.
Comment
Comment