2018 Brisbane Broncos Thread

I still agree with Pieman should have been in the bin. What annoys about it is like what you said no chance A-Rey gets there. Why did Sims go out of his way to do that? We go very lucky that went our way.

Oh, we were very lucky, my point was more to the fact that we’re supposedly in a refs crisis, yet it’s mostly because the outrage machine picks and chooses how they want a rule enforced depending on who’s being advantaged/disadvantaged, often times contradicting themselves in the process.

That game told me neither of these teams are contendors. Put your house on a Storm Vs Roosters grand final. And fuck you donkeys that's our ticket out of the finals race.

No Worries wrote:That game told me neither of these teams are contendors. Put your house on a Storm Vs Roosters grand final. And fuck you donkeys that's our ticket out of the finals race.

I don't know if I agree. I don't think Souths will worry too much about last night. They have their whole backline to return before finals, and after a long winning streak earlier in the season its not surprising to see them off the boil for a couple of weeks. I reckon they'll swing into action again come finals. If I was a Souths fan I wouldn't be worried.

Broncos - well, I have never thought we were contenders. We just aren't consistent enough, and our defense is too sloppy. We can play well for 30 minutes and then we're spent. It was probably peak effort from us last night and we nearly gave the game away in the middle there. As a Bronx fan I'll always have hope that we can string a few more wins together, but bowing out in week 1 or 2 seems a foregone conclusion.

Milford had a great game.

Sidenote - does every contentious ref call really need to be discussed at length?

surmo13 wrote:

Just on the Sims ruling, it was wrong, but I’m pretty amused at the reaction, considering if I recall correctly (and I do), all the non-Broncos fans were up in arms about the end of the first Bulldogs game, where Mbye deliberately interferes with Boyd, but according to them, Boyd was no chance of getting to the ball so it shouldn’t have even been a penalty, kinda like how Reynolds was no chance tonight, who knew they were a bunch of hippie-hypocrites?... oh wait, I did...

Why dont you go back and read what most people actually wrote about that incident before you start another imaginary "everyone is against the bronco's" argument. Most people wrote, its soft but its the right call.

At the time I thought the Mbye one should have been a penalty and thats it. Since then they have gone on to sin bin shit tonnes of players for taking out kick chasers, so you would assume that they would continue to do that. This one wasnt even a penalty. It should have been a penalty at the very minimum, and going off what they have been doing all yeah - should have been a sin bin too.

Here is what you wrote about it

surmo13 wrote:If Mbye didn’t want to give away a penalty to decide the game, maybe he shouldn’t have purposefully interfered with a player contesting the ball...

You agree that if someone is purposefully interfered with, it should at least, be a penalty.

No Worries wrote:That game told me neither of these teams are contendors. Put your house on a Storm Vs Roosters grand final. And fuck you donkeys that's our ticket out of the finals race.

I agree that this will be the GF.

Also, whats going on with GI? he has been out since origin 2 with a broken thumb... usually thats 4-6 weeks then back into action. Maybe his mental health issues are around again. Hopefully not.

I cant believe Walker stepped back in when he was going to score. So fucking dumb. If he scores that, souths go on to win the game IMO, was such a huge moment.

Souths will be okay in the finals. They play that fast paced roll it forward game with quick hands in the backs and some good set plays that will stand them in good stead, and as someone said, have players coming back. They could be screwed if Reynolds is out for an extended time though. He looked broken on multiple counts at the end.

Their defence needs fixing, but that's just a couple of players back IMO.

Funny that we always seem to match up well against the Rabbits, even when they are playing better than us coming into the game. Cook was quiet by his standards. Our biggest problem is we let teams get too much of a roll on in attack so they're putting a bomb or attacking kick up from our half every set. Perhaps that same stand back defence somehow is a positive against a running hooker like Cook. About the only time he actually looked dangerous last night was when he received it in broken play or first or second off the ruck.

Plus the Roosters are chokers. We're no chance of being there either though. It'll be Melbourne v someone else. Wouldn't be surprised given the draw if the Sharks sneak into 4th and make the GF. Them or Rabbits would be my pick to play the Storm.

Serious question regarding the Sims ruling. What rule actually covers this? It must be something but since the Broncos were the attacking team since in all that play the Rabbitohs never touched the ball (we batted it back after a dropout) is the rule any different to the obstruction/escort rule people are claiming? The 2018 interpretations (https://www.nrl.com/siteassets/operations/nrl-laws-and-interpretations-2018.pdf) at page 17 in relation to escorts only applies when it's in regard to a player catching a ball from a kick, which is not the case here.

The Broncos had posession the whole time in that play. Sims was running towards the ball (clearly not directly towards, but he was certainly getting closer to the dead ball line) and can't be offside because he was in his own in goal. Milford was clearly going to get the ball so maybe all he can get done for is obstructing a defender. But no advantage was taken as he ran it dead, so obstructing a defender is only penalised when the player with the ball takes an advantage. It's nothing like the Roberts Origin sin bin or Mbye sin bin because in those cases the escort interpretation specifically covers that case as it is in relation to a player attempting to regather a kick.

We were always going to win last night. The saddest thing about this season is I'm more confident about beating the better teams than the teams near the bottom 4. It's just fucked.

Dip wrote:Serious question regarding the Sims ruling. What rule actually covers this? It must be something but since the Broncos were the attacking team since in all that play the Rabbitohs never touched the ball (we batted it back after a dropout) is the rule any different to the obstruction/escort rule people are claiming? The 2018 interpretations (https://www.nrl.com/siteassets/operations/nrl-laws-and-interpretations-2018.pdf) at page 17 in relation to escorts only applies when it's in regard to a player catching a ball from a kick, which is not the case here.

The Broncos had posession the whole time in that play. Sims was running towards the ball (clearly not directly towards, but he was certainly getting closer to the dead ball line) and can't be offside because he was in his own in goal. Milford was clearly going to get the ball so maybe all he can get done for is obstructing a defender. But no advantage was taken as he ran it dead, so obstructing a defender is only penalised when the player with the ball takes an advantage. It's nothing like the Roberts Origin sin bin or Mbye sin bin because in those cases the escort interpretation specifically covers that case as it is in relation to a player attempting to regather a kick.

It wasn't a penalty mate let alone a sin bin and for 100 years people have been allowed to run into the line of others also going for the ball- which is exactly what happened.

They also specifically mention on kicks too in the rules but regardless in my view, it's similar to when a fullback shepherds the ball over the dead ball line.

Fairly clear for mine and was surprised (but not surprised) there was any 'controversy' about that one.

The poorest call for the night (although correct by the letter of the law) was the Kahu no try.
I know they have tried to make things black and white but that was caught so far back from the 'block' runner it had no affect on the play.
They need to watch that because if they truly rule that to the letter of the law, a fullback receiving the ball from a kick who then runs across field but 50m behind the play may technically fall under that ruling.

my tv broke wrote:

I don't know if I agree. I don't think Souths will worry too much about last night. They have their whole backline to return before finals, and after a long winning streak earlier in the season its not surprising to see them off the boil for a couple of weeks. I reckon they'll swing into action again come finals. If I was a Souths fan I wouldn't be worried.

Broncos - well, I have never thought we were contenders. We just aren't consistent enough, and our defense is too sloppy. We can play well for 30 minutes and then we're spent. It was probably peak effort from us last night and we nearly gave the game away in the middle there. As a Bronx fan I'll always have hope that we can string a few more wins together, but bowing out in week 1 or 2 seems a foregone conclusion.

Milford had a great game.

Sidenote - does every contentious ref call really need to be discussed at length?

Most people haven't written Souths off.

In fact, I haven't written any team in the Top 8 off largely because even the most inconsistent team (the Broncos) are capable of and have beaten a lot of the top teams.

Wouldn't surprise me if the likes of Broncos or Warriors or even Dragons go on a run come the finals time (if they all make it).

A team as inconsistent as we have been ALL season I don't think is capable of suddenly finding consistency in the finals and winning the premiership.

Oz Sport Mad wrote:

It wasn't a penalty mate let alone a sin bin and for 100 years people have been allowed to run into the line of others also going for the ball- which is exactly what happened.

They also specifically mention on kicks too in the rules but regardless in my view, it's similar to when a fullback shepherds the ball over the dead ball line.

Fairly clear for mine and was surprised (but not surprised) there was any 'controversy' about that one.

The poorest call for the night (although correct by the letter of the law) was the Kahu no try.
I know they have tried to make things black and white but that was caught so far back from the 'block' runner it had no affect on the play.
They need to watch that because if they truly rule that to the letter of the law, a fullback receiving the ball from a kick who then runs across field but 50m behind the play may technically fall under that ruling.

Meninga against the Pom's comes to mind, as long as you don't "push" you can physically run someone off the ball.

What about the defender who comes through and tackles the kicker then his fullback runs the length of he field and scores. Bad defensive read by the kicker of block by the defender come atttacker ?

They have nothing to watch or be concerned of because there is no "technically".

Dip wrote:Serious question regarding the Sims ruling. What rule actually covers this? It must be something but since the Broncos were the attacking team since in all that play the Rabbitohs never touched the ball (we batted it back after a dropout) is the rule any different to the obstruction/escort rule people are claiming? The 2018 interpretations (https://www.nrl.com/siteassets/operations/nrl-laws-and-interpretations-2018.pdf) at page 17 in relation to escorts only applies when it's in regard to a player catching a ball from a kick, which is not the case here.

The Broncos had posession the whole time in that play. Sims was running towards the ball (clearly not directly towards, but he was certainly getting closer to the dead ball line) and can't be offside because he was in his own in goal. Milford was clearly going to get the ball so maybe all he can get done for is obstructing a defender. But no advantage was taken as he ran it dead, so obstructing a defender is only penalised when the player with the ball takes an advantage. It's nothing like the Roberts Origin sin bin or Mbye sin bin because in those cases the escort interpretation specifically covers that case as it is in relation to a player attempting to regather a kick.

Wouldnt you have to have control of the ball to become the attacking team?
Is fielding a bouncing ball the same as catching a ball from a kick?
Surely if no one has control of the ball after a batback then both players are still attempting to regather a kick?

Pieman wrote:

Wouldnt you have to have control of the ball to become the attacking team?
Is fielding a bouncing ball the same as catching a ball from a kick?
Surely if no one has control of the ball after a batback then both players are still attempting to regather a kick?

Broncos had the ball when the play started, kicked it and no Rabbitoh touched it. Of course we're the attacking team. A team that throws a loose pass is still the attacking team until the other team takes possession of it. I have no idea what you mean by the second point or it's relevance. I totally disagree with the third point as Oates, the attacking player, played at the ball and hit it with his hand not his foot, so no way can it still be termed a kick after that.

Oz Sport Mad wrote:

The poorest call for the night (although correct by the letter of the law) was the Kahu no try.
I know they have tried to make things black and white but that was caught so far back from the 'block' runner it had no affect on the play.
They need to watch that because if they truly rule that to the letter of the law, a fullback receiving the ball from a kick who then runs across field but 50m behind the play may technically fall under that ruling.

The thing about the Kahu ruling (which I agree was no try and has been called that for about a decade), was that the refs called Crichton offside (he was way offside to try and shut down the play they'd been caught out one twice already and were short on numbers) but allowed play on since they went through and "scored". Broncos were penalised for taking the ball inside the lead runner instead of Rabbits being penalised for the first infringement, being the offside. No advantage had been taken.

Dip wrote:

Broncos had the ball when the play started, kicked it and no Rabbitoh touched it. Of course we're the attacking team. A team that throws a loose pass is still the attacking team until the other team takes possession of it. I have no idea what you mean by the second point or it's relevance. I totally disagree with the third point as Oates, the attacking player, played at the ball and hit it with his hand not his foot, so no way can it still be termed a kick after that.

are we talking about the same thing? Ive only seen it once, but didnt souths kick it, a bronco batted it back then as they are chasing sims knocks reynolds over? then milf takes it dead? Or am I confusing 2 plays, sorry, have only seen it once.

No the Broncos kicked it. It was a short drop out.

We apparently signed O'Sullivan. Any thoughts on him? I haven't seen him play before.