Post-Game Discussion Raiders v Manly [Round 23, 2021]

[Rafferty]

That same professional foul occurs at the end of every close game and has done for years.

Yep possibly, but how many of them have a win in the balance? Don’t get me wrong I’m not supporting what happened, i think it would of just been smarter to get off and defend one more play than to allow the ref that opportunity and let’s face it Gee has a huge question mark floating over him.
Looking at the replay the ball player was actually holding shoes arm in anyway, could just as easily been called as milking by an unbiased ref.

 

[Rowdy]

The main positive from last night was the second half and the power of completing sets and building pressure - the Melbourne style game. I've been waiting for us to be patient like that and wear a team down for weeks. In the first half we tried the Turbo game without Turbo but that's not the way to win without him. Too much of the space is created by his unique skills, acceleration and attention he gets. The team as a whole will benefit massively from that second half. Yes we can win without Turbo and this is the way to do it...

Yes. If you can't appreciate our performance in the second half last night, then I don't think you will have much to look forward to during the business end of the finals.

 

[Scorpio]

Sipley 18 minutes of game time and Sironen only 14 minutes... one would ask are they injured?

 

[cherry_poppins]

What a dumb football team we are.... up by 7 with a minute to go and DCE throws an intercept.... 10 seconds to go and opposition pinned and you give away a penalty and a shot at a 2 point penalty.

WTF I can't take this much more of this

Then **** off and follow a bridge club

 

[Shoe1]

Then **** off and follow a bridge club

What if the north player makes a ridiculous call near the end of the rubber?

 

[HoldenV8]

But it isn't really contract time. Suli is signed with us for next year, and the Goons are trying to get him for the next three years. Contract based performances usually occur in the last year of a deal where there is minimal interest in a player.

Suli could have kicked stones this year. Instead, his past three performances have been terrific, team first efforts.

He deserves a wrap.

Not saying he doesn't deserve a wrap for last nights game (when he had the ball in his hands at least). But why has it taken 2 years for him to play that that again???

 

[eaglebuzz]

Sipley 18 minutes of game time and Sironen only 14 minutes... one would ask are they injured?

Have you ever watched a Des Hasler coached team before? The fact that one of them didn't ride the pine for the whole 80 is actually surprising.

 

[Eagle 1]

Have you ever watched a Des Hasler coached team before? The fact that one of them didn't ride the pine for the whole 80 is actually surprising.

Seems to be the way Des likes it, he only uses 16 and 17 sparingly in the majority of games.

 

[Kevinward777]

Yep possibly, but how many of them have a win in the balance? Don’t get me wrong I’m not supporting what happened, i think it would of just been smarter to get off and defend one more play than to allow the ref that opportunity and let’s face it Gee has a huge question mark floating over him.
Looking at the replay the ball player was actually holding shoes arm in anyway, could just as easily been called as milking by an unbiased ref.

So the ref can decide to change their call if a game is in the balance? It's an absolute dogs breakfast. Changing rules that are implemented at the officials discretion.

 

[Dee Why Eagle]

Yep possibly, but how many of them have a win in the balance? Don’t get me wrong I’m not supporting what happened, i think it would of just been smarter to get off and defend one more play than to allow the ref that opportunity and let’s face it Gee has a huge question mark floating over him.
Looking at the replay the ball player was actually holding shoes arm in anyway, could just as easily been called as milking by an unbiased ref.

could manly have challenged on that basis? If so most likely loose but gets your line set

 

[Rafferty]

So the ref can decide to change their call if a game is in the balance? It's an absolute dogs breakfast. Changing rules implemented as the officials decide.

Yer, on the evidence of it it seems so mate, one gets the feeling it’s on the nose, you probably shouldn’t be all that surprised

 

[Rafferty]

could manly have challenged on that basis? If so most likely loose but gets your line set

The captain may not challenge discretionary penalties such as ruck and marker infringements (like crowding, dissent and back-chat) or 10-metre offside penalties. Captains can challenge any decisions around a change in possession other than forward passes (which cannot be ruled on by the Bunker).

Each team is allowed one unsuccessful challenge per game. The only decision that can be challenged are ones which involve a structured restart of play (e.g penalty, scrum, drop-out, etc). Challenges will not be permitted where the referee allows play to proceed

We had our challenge available, so yes we could of if Chez made the challenge at the point Gee called the penalty.
Its a tuff one in the fatigue zone but it would of eaten up the clock and or allowed us to set our defence either way it’s worth using the captain’s challenge in that situation regardless of whatever way the referee ends up going.

 

[Dan]

What are they calling clock whatsa now?

 

[lulubelle]

What is Des's love affair with Walker? Gets so much game time when other players, far better than him sit on the bench and get little game time.
Walker is a hog. So many times he could have passed to set up a try but hangs on to the ball. Sometimes he does some good things but he really is a liability. He's not a part of the new Manly style of playing.

 

[Chip and Chase]

School reunion on Friday night

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

I think Morgan is clearly the trouble maker in that bunch!

 

[The Who]

The captain may not challenge discretionary penalties such as ruck and marker infringements (like crowding, dissent and back-chat) or 10-metre offside penalties. Captains can challenge any decisions around a change in possession other than forward passes (which cannot be ruled on by the Bunker).

Each team is allowed one unsuccessful challenge per game. The only decision that can be challenged are ones which involve a structured restart of play (e.g penalty, scrum, drop-out, etc). Challenges will not be permitted where the referee allows play to proceed

We had our challenge available, so yes we could of if Chez made the challenge at the point Gee called the penalty.
Its a tuff one in the fatigue zone but it would of eaten up the clock and or allowed us to set our defence either way it’s worth using the captain’s challenge in that situation regardless of whatever way the referee ends up going.

How come Teddy challenged a head high tackle last week and won the challenge, with Easts receiving a penalty?
To me that gave approval for any challenge relating to a tackle, such as a crusher or shoulder charge.
Frankly, I don't like the idea of a captain's challenge. The on field ref has a better chance of telling if a ball was dropped or stripped than the Bunker who can't have a feel for the game when he/she is cocooned in a room thousands of miles from the ground. Anything that gives the Bunker a reason to interject is bad for the sport.

 

[StuBoot]

How come Teddy challenged a head high tackle last week and won the challenge, with Easts receiving a penalty?
To me that gave approval for any challenge relating to a tackle, such as a crusher or shoulder charge.
Frankly, I don't like the idea of a captain's challenge. The on field ref has a better chance of telling if a ball was dropped or stripped than the Bunker who can't have a feel for the game when he/she is cocooned in a room thousands of miles from the ground. Anything that gives the Bunker a reason to interject is bad for the sport.

I agree about the Bunker interjection but as it was a change in possession he rolled the dice and challenged.
He may have thought it was a high shot but I don’t think he specifically asked that, but knew once it was looked at anything will be looked at.
It’s not like the Bunker can say we’ll ignore the slap in the face because you can’t/didn’t ask for that.
Once they’ve seen it they unfortunately have no other option but to call it.
Done on a technicality.
It’s the simple ones that they miss that p!$$es me off.

 

[Rafferty]

I agree about the Bunker interjection but as it was a change in possession he rolled the dice and challenged.
He may have thought it was a high shot but I don’t think he specifically asked that, but knew once it was looked at anything will be looked at.
It’s not like the Bunker can say we’ll ignore the slap in the face because you can’t/didn’t ask for that.
Once they’ve seen it they unfortunately have no other option but to call it.
Done on a technicality.
It’s the simple ones that they miss that p!$$es me off.

It’s the simple ones that they miss that p!$$es me off.

Do they miss them?
Or do they selectively choose?
There were instances on the weekend that demonstrated the bunker is basically in overall control of the game, I can’t recall which game it was in, but the bunker pulled up play without a valid stoppage and reviewed an earlier incident during the general run of play, which it subsequently deemed ok and called play on, (what was going on there? whatever it was it reeked of controlling the game) I’m sure someone on here recalls the moment and the game, who might be able to confirm which match it was, sorry it was one of those weekends.

Also one of Gutho‘s captains challenge‘s raised a few points of interest on Saturday night, he called for a knock on initially after the penalty went against him, it may have been for interference on the player who dived on the lose ball after the tackle which caused the ball carrier to lose possession, Gutho then dived on the subsequent loose ball and was penalised, he then carried on about a knock on, ref said he could challenge, so he did and and an earlier transgression was picked up in the original tackle that caused the ball to come loose, the challenge was deemed successful, but not on Gutho‘s claim.

Thing is the fox crew reviewed that moment after the game and carried on about how smart Gutho was to intentionally give away a penalty to have the earlier transgression reviewed, (which was nonsense and not the case) Gutho just got lucky, but it has highlighted a crucial point, if the ref misses an incident in a tackle and there is no stoppage, then there is the option to give away a penalty to have the missed transgression reviewed, (it’s a risk and not really in the spirit of the game) I’m sure I won’t be the only one who paid attention to that moment and the possibility of turning possession that way , there would be several coaches reviewing it and looking to utilise or take advantage of intentionally giving a penalty based on believing a transgression has been missed,not called or incorrectly called, which can then be picked up under review and get a decision reversed, simply by intentionally giving away a penalty to cause a stoppage or turn over as per the rule.

The whole bunker, captains challenge, review of on field incidents is making a mockery of the game, I say that as its the primary driver of players holding their necks, looking to milk penalties and or gain a change in on field decisions, its not a good look for our game, has reintroduced slowing tactics and the big one is the question mark over dare I say controlling the outcome of games or let’s call it for what it really is the possibility of corruption.

 

[The Wheel]

Here it is - stats from weekend

Rd 23 Sea Eagles Stats Review

It was another classic thriller against the Canberra Raiders on Friday night with a clutch field goal from Manly Warringah Sea Eagles captain Daly Cherry-Evans sealing a 19-18 victory.

www.seaeagles.com.au