NRL Round 20 2016 Cronulla Sutherland Sharks vs. Newcastle Knights @ Shark Park Sunday 24 July @ 2pm

[HaroldBishop]

It's ****ing amazing when you're playing badly and still scoring 38 points. I don't care who we're playing. We were considered the **** club a couple of years ago. It's a great time.

Don't you miss scraping home against a **** team by 2?

 

[Vichyssoise]

The problem is, youll probably see the same tries scored and allowed in tonights game. Consistency is what is the biggest problem.

Totally agree here. I'm starting to think there should be 1 team of refs in the bunker. The same for all the games all season long. No changing, no swapping, no nothing. That might ensure some consistency

With Barba he gets the ball wide and either side of the field he has Bird and Holmes or Leutele(beale) and feki. So those outside guys are all having great years too and all genuine threats with the ball in hand. Barba then has his options infront of him and the defence is always worried because any one of those players will do damage.

I honestly cant believe what im seeing. After 20 rounds we have the best attack in the comp. We have scored more points than any other team. Lets go back to last year where we were scraping in wins, or 2014 where we couldnt buy a win. Even 2013 which was our highest finished place in years we didnt play anywhere near as good as we are now.

I, for one, am happy to say that although I complained about the frustrating performance in the Knights game it can't be compared with the frustration of watching us grind our way out to two tries a game and a loss like we'd gotten used to.
We were way too good for the Knights. We should have smashed them.

On Barba, I was pretty underwhelmed when the club signed him. I thought we'd get another Tim Smith / Leon Bott type of player (okay, pushing the enveloppe with the Leon Bott reference). He's just been brilliant so far and one of the main reason our attack is so good.

 

[Sir Chadley]

I didn't mind the no try calls going against us yesterday but as has been said on here previously it's the consistency of the officials that's being questioned. I thought Val's could have gone either way and Barba's try also could have been awarded.

But it's in other areas I have a beef with the officials and it's mainly the stripping rule that bugs me. Twice we were penalised for a strip, one was definitely a lost ball and yet we had two blatantly stripped and while one was penalised, it should have been a sin bin. The other one was let go.

Also I found the bunker just way too slow yesterday. And so many things could be seen by Ev, Littleshark and me dozens of metres away, why they to went to the video on the Newcastle try staggers me.

 

[snowman]

vals try could only go one way and that was no try

 

[Sir Chadley]

vals try could only go one way and that was no try

Maybe. Momentum was the issue though I thought and you can't see momentum on a slow motion replay. Not once did they replay it at full speed to check the momentum.

Anyway happy for it to be classed as a no try as long as the officials are consistent.

 

[slide rule]

I don't think the original intention of the rule was to stop a try like Val's yesterday. The reason that rule is there is so that players don't just reach out after the tackle is completed.

 

[snowman]

the problem was, once vals arm hit the ground, the determination of momentum is whether he would make the ingoal or not

the problem for val in this instance, is the only thing that made the ingoal was the ball, meaning the extension was illegal

 

[slide rule]

It's ****ing amazing when you're playing badly and still scoring 38 points. I don't care who we're playing. We were considered the **** club a couple of years ago. It's a great time.

Just realised it was only 36. Piss poor.

 

[snowman]

Just realised it was only 36. Piss poor.

lol

 

[Sir Chadley]

the problem was, once vals arm hit the ground, the determination of momentum is whether he would make the ingoal or not

the problem for val in this instance, is the only thing that made the ingoal was the ball, meaning the extension was illegal

Fair enough mate. As I said, I just hope any similar ones down the track are judged accordingly.

 

[snowman]

they generally have been this year

they judge the rule on whether any other part of the body reaches the in goal

 

[BurgoShark]

Happy for the no try on Val's effort. Not happy with the no try on Barba. That was just a dumb call. They treated Ennis as if he was a lead runner rather than a guy who had passed the ball 1 second earlier. If they'd watched it in real time rather than super slow-mo they would have seen that. Gasnier was arguing that Ennis's intention is to "take out that inside defender", which is a bit misleading. His job is to "commit" that inside defender to him when he had the ball, which he did perfectly.

If Ennis as a support player in that position I would be OK with the no try, but that was probably one of the worst obstruction calls I've seen. It's up there with the one against the Tigers where the player fell for a dummy and they called it obstruction.

 

[sharks2010]

Just realised it was only 36. Piss poor.

should be on 42 even though there's only a possibility of 40. **** club

Val promoted the ball so it was only ever going to end one way. Not sure why someone said Beales was a double movement. Can't be a double movement if there are no defenders on the attacker

 

[A l e x]

My problem is if that's obstruction ****ing call it right away don't let them run 50m and score then go ahh yea check the obstruction... i mean they obviously saw the "obstruction" but if he got tackled 10m out and we score later in the set it would have been play on most likely which shows what a joke it is, why is it obstruction sometimes only when they score?

 

[HaroldBishop]

My problem is if that's obstruction ****ing call it right away don't let them run 50m and score then go ahh yea check the obstruction... i mean they obviously saw the "obstruction" but if he got tackled 10m out and we score later in the set it would have been play on most likely which shows what a joke it is, why is it obstruction sometimes only when they score?

It was the right call but I agree with what you're saying. It's why we should use it again when coming out of our own end, easy way to make 40-50 metres, just don't score from it.

 

[Gards]

It was given try IIRC - did they really see something or just wanted to review it for sake of being sure?
Over analyse things enough and your are often going to find contact and something to argue against a try. It's a contact sport with bodies in motion - the rules and interpretations are not in-line with the realities of the game

Having said that after watching a few replays it does appear that Ennis knew what he was doing and did get in the way a bit but there are plenty of other blocks and contact that don't get called up

Consistency is still a major problem and ofcourse if you don't score from it then happy days

 

[goodbyepenrithhellosharks]

My problem is if that's obstruction ****ing call it right away don't let them run 50m and score then go ahh yea check the obstruction... i mean they obviously saw the "obstruction" but if he got tackled 10m out and we score later in the set it would have been play on most likely which shows what a joke it is, why is it obstruction sometimes only when they score?

storm do this same play all the time but they miss the first inside runner and pick up munster 2nd in and never get penalised......but you cannot penalise cam smith as that is sacrilage

 

[slide rule]

Cooper Cronk holding Frizzell back in Origin was worse, but oh well.

 

[snowman]

should be on 42 even though there's only a possibility of 40. **** club

What?

 

[sharks2010]

What?

sorry I thought slide was talking about how many competition points we were on