Was Hayne auditioning for AFL last night?

  • We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.

The Who

Journey Man
He must have kicked 3-4 AFL goals last night that are useless in rugby league, resulting in a 20-metre restart. He also kicked two into touch on the full.
Yes, he kicked a 40:20, but overall I couldn't understand his kicking tactics. All I can think of is that there was an AFL scout in the crowd ready to give him big bucks to join Issie and Karmichael.
 
His kicking out the back must have been a tactic design to slow down the back 3 at Manly. I think it actually slowed the game down for us. Our big guys did a lot of running and when the Eels started to get on top between the 60-70 min mark, he still kicked out. Gave our guys a chance to dawdle back and catch their breath.

I think Haynes next contract will be with an AFL team anyway. By then the NRL would have found out how over rated he is and nobody will give the prima donna a massive pay day.
 
Good tactic for another team just not against ours. He would have been better off running it and spreading it wide again and then having support players all backing up on the same side of the field
 
They were leading with 3 minutes to go so it might not have been that bad. It does completely shut down one aspect of our backs with the kick return. I think it works pretty well when he was kicking some of them from his own 40, we would have definitely made it past the 25m mark from a normal kick on a fair few of those kicks.
 
I think it was to avoid allowing the back three for us to get the ball in broken play, as he was afraid Brett, or Robbo or Wolf would produce something and create a try, and guess what - that's what happened. They must of thought that we would make well over the 20 on the kick return, so better to have a 20 restart with a set defensive line.
 
Rusty said:
I think it was to avoid allowing the back three for us to get the ball in broken play, as he was afraid Brett, or Robbo or Wolf would produce something and create a try, and guess what - that's what happened. They must of thought that we would make well over the 20 on the kick return, so better to have a 20 restart with a set defensive line.

How often do our back 3 break through in this situation?
next to none, so I can't see it is a productive and good tactic against us.

They weren't leading because of those kicks and we were still tackling them inside their 30 so it wasn't holding us back that much.

They were leading because Hayne through some great passes to get outside our last defender and we made some poor reads
 
Daniel said:
Rusty said:
I think it was to avoid allowing the back three for us to get the ball in broken play, as he was afraid Brett, or Robbo or Wolf would produce something and create a try, and guess what - that's what happened. They must of thought that we would make well over the 20 on the kick return, so better to have a 20 restart with a set defensive line.

How often do our back 3 break through in this situation?
next to none, so I can't see it is a productive and good tactic against us.

They weren't leading because of those kicks and we were still tackling them inside their 30 so it wasn't holding us back that much.

They were leading because Hayne through some great passes to get outside our last defender and we made some poor reads

I didn't say it was a good idea, just that was the only reason I could think could be behind it. It certainly was on purpose, whatever the reason.
 
Daniel said:
Rusty said:
I think it was to avoid allowing the back three for us to get the ball in broken play, as he was afraid Brett, or Robbo or Wolf would produce something and create a try, and guess what - that's what happened. They must of thought that we would make well over the 20 on the kick return, so better to have a 20 restart with a set defensive line.

How often do our back 3 break through in this situation?
next to none, so I can't see it is a productive and good tactic against us.

They weren't leading because of those kicks and we were still tackling them inside their 30 so it wasn't holding us back that much.

They were leading because Hayne through some great passes to get outside our last defender and we made some poor reads

Quite often though Dan, we tend to get a roll on through massive kick returns and more often than not we find ourselves over the halfway wich allows us to use attacking kicks to finish off our set. If they roll one over the dead ball line they are set and they did keep us in the middle of the field for most of the time they were doing it. Not saying i agree with it but it did tend to work to a point. As i've said before, i don't think they expected to be in front with 10 to go. But they found themselves there and tried to hang on to it. And nearly did it.
 
Fonz said:
Yay, another thread on Hayne! Is that 3 in 1 day?

hahahanhaha lmfao . . Parra did 6 on Stewart in their forum`s (just kidding)..As if i would waste me time even typing in their addy or clicking on their logo..
 
Fonz that just isnt true. This year we have been pinning teams inside their own 30 which means their kicks have not been getting very deep and meaning 1 or two runs get us over half way.
Hayne was kicking in our half or on halfway and would have been better kicking for position
 
It was a negative tactic used to nullify our back three and waste time. Soward also uses this tactic against teams whom they perceive to have dangerous kick-returners. That is why I believe it should be discouraged by adopting Rugby's rule, you kick it dead, it goes back to where it was kicked from. Attacking kicks inside the twenty that go dead wouldn't be affected as it goes back to the 20 anyway. Kicks outside the 20 that go dead are usually either an error or negative tactic and need to be punished / discouraged.
 
It wouldn't have been a negative tactic for them had they won. We could have easily stopped it but chose not to. Brett Stewart could have been alot deeper than what he was and we could have used a shoe string type arrangement with the wingers.
 
Kicking the ball dead is a tactic: think about it your the opposing team and the last thing you want to do is give Wolfman or Snake a broken defensive line that kick's often generate.

This was first done to the Storm and it nullified Slater some what
 
mosto said:
I believe it should be discouraged by adopting Rugby's rule, you kick it dead, it goes back to where it was kicked from. Attacking kicks inside the twenty that go dead wouldn't be affected as it goes back to the 20 anyway. Kicks outside the 20 that go dead are usually either an error or negative tactic and need to be punished / discouraged.

Good rule change initiative.
 
So your trying to help the fullback only teams? we have an array of stars which can make this effort pointless and winless (see the result)
 

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
3 3 0 48 6
3 2 1 45 4
3 2 1 28 4
3 2 1 22 4
3 2 1 15 4
3 2 1 14 4
2 1 1 13 4
3 2 1 10 4
2 1 1 6 4
3 2 1 -3 4
3 1 2 0 2
3 1 2 -5 2
3 1 2 -15 2
3 1 2 -22 2
3 1 2 -36 2
2 0 2 -56 2
3 0 3 -64 0
Back
Top Bottom