2017 Brisbane Broncos Thread - we hate them for their freedom

Exactly right. The worst bit is the driving into the ground.

Grahams deserves a week, its a joke he didnt get anything. 3 weeks for that tackle tho.. far out. Thats a nice rest coming into finals. What a joke, it was one of the worst spear tackles I have seen in recent seasons. (Yes the odonnell one was fucking disgusting)

If he breaks his neck, Joe O gets a 16 week suspension. Because there was no injury, light slap on the wrist.

The nrl is a fucking joke in regards to this shit.

I don't have a problem, I have a problem with the difference in penalties, especially when Graham had 20% loading

Dip wrote:I don't have a problem, I have a problem with the difference in penalties, especially when Graham had 20% loading

Yeah but he had 0 carry over points and the discount for an early plea is more then that minor loading adds. Graham let go of the bloke when it turned pear shaped. Ofa - like Ben Hannat - didn't pull out when he should have. 3 week difference in penalties is completely fine and maybe even not big enough.

Fair enough. I'm not sure whether dropping someone on their neck/head is that much better than continuing the tackle (and I say that seriously, as I don't know how much difference there is for the risk of injury), but for me there was only 1 grade difference between the two. Instead Graham got the lowest possible grading, and Joe O got the highest possible grading. Neither of them had a second man in the tackle where the balance of the attacker can be compromised.

From a footballing sense, since Joe O was a couple of metres from his tryline, I can see why he would lift a player to stop forward momentum, and also not let go - as opposed to doing it elsewhere on the field. Still, it's his duty to tackle safely regardless of the position on the field or other defenders.

Of course my gripe could subliminally be that I think that Cronulla always gets the good calls with the refs/judiciary/nrl, and I wouldn't have minded Graham missing the game against the Broncos this week. I thought Gallen should have got a grade 1 for his high tackle as well, though that doesn't warrant a suspension without carry over.

[quote="ryno_"]

If Matt Lodge plays a single game in Broncos colours I'll go for a different team for the season. Fuck him. Club doesn't need him, game doesn't need him. I would hope Brisbane have better standards then Roosters or Newcastle supporters.

What player(s) are you alluding to when it comes to Roosters and Knights?

Seems like a random stab at two teams given the type of people that have been/are in the Broncos system.

Dip wrote:Fair enough. I'm not sure whether dropping someone on their neck/head is that much better than continuing the tackle (and I say that seriously, as I don't know how much difference there is for the risk of injury), but for me there was only 1 grade difference between the two. Instead Graham got the lowest possible grading, and Joe O got the highest possible grading. Neither of them had a second man in the tackle where the balance of the attacker can be compromised.

From a footballing sense, since Joe O was a couple of metres from his tryline, I can see why he would lift a player to stop forward momentum, and also not let go - as opposed to doing it elsewhere on the field. Still, it's his duty to tackle safely regardless of the position on the field or other defenders.

Of course my gripe could subliminally be that I think that Cronulla always gets the good calls with the refs/judiciary/nrl, and I wouldn't have minded Graham missing the game against the Broncos this week. I thought Gallen should have got a grade 1 for his high tackle as well, though that doesn't warrant a suspension without carry over.

In terms of letting someone go to driving them into the ground, it's purely a velocity and force thing.

If you let someone go there's no added weight coming down that can cause more damage. If you're driving them down you've got more force and therefore danger in the tackle.

I would have liked to see him sin binned - I think that's what we should be using the sin bin for. We should ask ourselves "Would he face a potential suspension for that? Yes? Alright ten in the bin"

I'm happy with the grading. Looked about as bad as it gets, and I'm sure everyone is happy there was no injury!!

In his defense, I think the other would-be tackler got wrong footed, and wasn't there to effect the counter-tackle from the other side. If Blair (i think it was him?) was there, I don't think that tackle goes that way.

dasherhalo wrote:I'm happy with the grading. Looked about as bad as it gets, and I'm sure everyone is happy there was no injury!!

In his defense, I think the other would-be tackler got wrong footed, and wasn't there to effect the counter-tackle from the other side. If Blair (i think it was him?) was there, I don't think that tackle goes that way.

Potentially, but the onus always had to be on the defender.

The concern with those tackles is they can go so bad so quickly. I would absolutely hate any player to again go through what Alex McKinnon has gone through

dasherhalo wrote:I'm happy with the grading. Looked about as bad as it gets, and I'm sure everyone is happy there was no injury!!

In his defense, I think the other would-be tackler got wrong footed, and wasn't there to effect the counter-tackle from the other side. If Blair (i think it was him?) was there, I don't think that tackle goes that way.

Because Blair would have cannon balled his knees ?

Joe O's tackle is proof of what I have been harping on about for ages; that these heavy handed suspensions do sweet fuck all to prevent accidents like this occurring.

The sooner people (including the NRL) accept that these incidents can unintentionally go badly wrong in a split second, the better.

Honeysett wrote:

In terms of letting someone go to driving them into the ground, it's purely a velocity and force thing.

If you let someone go there's no added weight coming down that can cause more damage. If you're driving them down you've got more force and therefore danger in the tackle.

I would have liked to see him sin binned - I think that's what we should be using the sin bin for. We should ask ourselves "Would he face a potential suspension for that? Yes? Alright ten in the bin"

This surely has to be the next significant rule change. It clearly isn't right when, for example, Wade Graham with loading effectively has no penalty for this offence, and by comparison, Roberts is fined $1650 for misconduct, and Burgess and Papalii miss 10 minutes more of game time for tackling someone. Even thought Joe O will cop 3 weeks, is his team really that penalised? It's not like the Broncos will be that much worse off without him. He's probably the 16th or 17 player selected for the team, so the difference between him and the 18th best player isn't that much. If the Titans didn't put such a poor performance in during the second half, then chances are 10 minutes of missed game time would be worse for the Broncos in terms of how their season is affected, than his 3 week suspension.

Honeysett wrote:

What player(s) are you alluding to when it comes to Roosters and Knights?

Seems like a random stab at two teams given the type of people that have been/are in the Broncos system.

Fergo. Sydney for playing him and Newcastle for a particular pastry-based supporter defending him - sorry for taring you with that same brush.

ryno_ wrote:

Fergo. Sydney for playing him and Newcastle for a particular pastry-based supporter defending him - sorry for taring you with that same brush.

Tetevano probably earns a mention too

Oz Sport Mad wrote:Joe O's tackle is proof of what I have been harping on about for ages; that these heavy handed suspensions do sweet fuck all to prevent accidents like this occurring.

The sooner people (including the NRL) accept that these incidents can unintentionally go badly wrong in a split second, the better.

what

the

fuk

People keep doing them because of the light suspension they get. They dont get heavy handed suspensions, thats the issue here.
Unintentional or not, they happen. And if they happen the offender should be punished heavily, every single time. Not just if there is an injury or not.

ryno_ wrote:

Fergo. Sydney for playing him and Newcastle for a particular pastry-based supporter defending him - sorry for taring you with that same brush.

Interesting again lol. So stating a fact (a fact correcting your incorrect statement) means I was defending him? All I ever said was that he doesn't have a conviction, which is true. Everything else I said was solidly and 100% against what he did. Thats not defending him, thats correcting you. But hey, make up what ever you want if it makes you feel good. Nice troll tho

Considering the bronco's brought Lodge up north to groom him for an NRL berth, this convo is very rich lol. Boyd, Thaiday and co the 3 cubicle movie directors. Boyd the hotel room trasher, cheater, and so on. Roberts the alco, druggo, woman abuser, bouncer fighter and so on. Thats just the current ones off the top of my head too. Not to mention the moral midget that is the coach.

There will always be shit humans scattered around nrl clubs, just as there are in life.

Dip wrote:

This surely has to be the next significant rule change. It clearly isn't right when, for example, Wade Graham with loading effectively has no penalty for this offence, and by comparison, Roberts is fined $1650 for misconduct, and Burgess and Papalii miss 10 minutes more of game time for tackling someone. Even thought Joe O will cop 3 weeks, is his team really that penalised? It's not like the Broncos will be that much worse off without him. He's probably the 16th or 17 player selected for  the team, so the difference between him and the 18th best player isn't that much. If the Titans didn't put such a poor performance in during the second half, then chances are 10 minutes of missed game time would be worse for the Broncos in terms of how their season is affected, than his 3 week suspension.

It wouldnt be instead of the suspension, it would go with it. The side and player should be punished on the day and after.

Pieman wrote:He actually said he thought it was a chick that he hooked up with previously, and yes, grabbed her thinking she wouldnt care.

Pieman wrote:Why should he be in jail for it?

Pieman wrote:jail worthy? No way.

Pieman wrote:Should he be in jail for grabbing a chick on the vag? Prob not.

https://www.nrlfantasyfanatics.com/spa/Pieman/60

Blake Ferguson Supporters train, all aboard! Choo Choo!

And thats the last ill speak on it. My contrary position to your support of sex offenders is quite clear.

Awesome.

Post what ever out of context rubbish you want, I know what else I said and I know why I said it. There is a difference between "defending" someone and correcting someone with a fact.

Onya tho mate, another belter from you. Nice troll

Pieman wrote:

what

the

fuk

People keep doing them because of the light suspension they get. They dont get heavy handed suspensions, thats the issue here.
Unintentional or not, they happen. And if they happen the offender should be punished heavily, every single time. Not just if there is an injury or not.

Normally I'd discuss what a deadset simpleton you are right now.....but to be honest, most people think like you do in this regard.

IMO it is completely flawed logic though.

All players, Joe O included, know very fucking well they will be heavily suspended for any tackle that ends up like this.
So I can almost 100% guarantee Joe had no idea that something like that was going to happen when he went into that tackle.
Clumsy yes, intentional no.

So what does suspending them actually do?
Give him 3 weeks or give him 30 weeks, unfortunately these tackles will continue to happen accidentally.

Personally, I would love a shake up of the judiciary and 'intent' to be the focus.
Then avoidable high tackles like Gallen's on the weekend will be penalised and fans won't be missing seeing the players they like to watch for unintentional mistakes.
Yes it will be completely subjective and a bastard to try and adjudicate but at least we'll be suspending players for a reason, rather than this moronic false sense of security we have that players will be 'learning' from suspensions that they won't actually be learning from.

Honeysett wrote:

In terms of letting someone go to driving them into the ground, it's purely a velocity and force thing.

If you let someone go there's no added weight coming down that can cause more damage. If you're driving them down you've got more force and therefore danger in the tackle.

I would have liked to see him sin binned - I think that's what we should be using the sin bin for. We should ask ourselves "Would he face a potential suspension for that? Yes? Alright ten in the bin"

Bunker should be able to look at an offence being put on report, open up the guidelines the MRP use and go;

- Rotation of attacker? check
- Further rotation past horizontal? check
- Driving force through the tackle? check
- No other player pushing player into uncontrollable situation? check

Meets the standard for a grade 3 throw charge/500 penalty points. Recommend a send off.

Its not like he doesnt have the time to do that.

ED

Or alternatively

- No other player pushing player into uncontrollable situation? There are 2 people in the tackle and it cannot be determined at this stage who the primary offender is. Do not recommend an individual send off.

Or

- Meets the standard for a grade 2 throw charge only. Not sufficient potential grading for a send off.