NRL NRL 2024 - Grand Final Melbourne vs Penrith

[phantom13]

Grant for me had a good first 20 and did nothing after that wasn’t alone though. Munster had a good let’s say 60 odd mins wasn’t a player in the Melbourne side that played well the whole game. The second rowers Katoa and the other one were abysmal after having sensational years.

Grant had 59 tackles… he was also the only storm player who looked like pressing the line at all.

I can recall Munster backing up a Coates drop and making a good tackle (maybe on Martin) I also remember him dropping an absolutely sitter of a pass, being completely flat footed out of position for the Martin try (Howarth also ****ed that up) and outside that I recall absolutely nothing else he did except have no penetration or creativity with his kicking.

Munster would have been in my bottom 5 tonight tbh.

 

[brutus76]

Penrith deserved the win no doubt and kudos to them

Welch (seems to have lost a step and in agility post knee and achilles injuries) and Kamikamica (needs a huge pre season to get fit) very disappointing for me. Howarth will learn from that experience. Nelson was a huge loss

Need a couple of fit big blokes who can tackle seeing we've lost Finucane, Kaufusi and the Bromwiches in the last couple of years - Harry Grant and X were very good IMO

 

[balmainforever]

Just watched the call of the no try from fox sports.
Brilliant from Ennis and no hysterics from any of them saying it was a try.

 

[royboy2]

I’m done with you mate. You’re behaving like a flog, claiming no Melbourne supporters know the rules

This bit is true though

 

[nobbyiscool]

If you can't see that change your handle to nobbyisblind.

righto champ

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Grant had 59 tackles… he was also the only storm player who looked like pressing the line at all.

I can recall Munster backing up a Coates drop and making a good tackle (maybe on Martin) I also remember him dropping an absolutely sitter of a pass, being completely flat footed out of position for the Martin try (Howarth also ****ed that up) and outside that I recall absolutely nothing else he did except have no penetration or creativity with his kicking.

Munster would have been in my bottom 5 tonight tbh.

Tackles are a stat I hate flopping third man in gets you one. Aka the “Hindmarsh” if you remember him absolute expert at flopping third man in to beef his stats up.

Thought Munsters first 50 mins were good after that he was poor but I can’t name a storm player that had a good game maybe Wishart which says a lot how the game went if your utility bench bloke is one of your best

 

[phantom13]

righto champ

Again, that angle absolutely doesn’t show the ball held up. If they had a reverse angle it might.

Also look at the direction his body is being rolled in the tackle. Onto the ball.

To be clear I still think that’s a try but as I’ve said all along I have no issue with it being no try, the call was no try and it’s fair to say that’s not definitive to over rule it but the bunker saying that definitely shows him held up isn’t correct and your carry on about it isn’t either.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Just watched the call of the no try from fox sports.
Brilliant from Ennis and no hysterics from any of them saying it was a try.

Yep they explained it. Probably is a no try to be honest

 

[Ed_Gein]

Do they not give benefit of the doubt to the attacker? Can't remember what refs call was.

Gutted though

 

[phantom13]

Tackles are a stat I hate flopping third man in gets you one. Aka the “Hindmarsh” if you remember him absolute expert at flopping third man in to beef his stats up.

Thought Munsters first 50 mins were good after that he was poor but I can’t name a storm player that had a good game maybe Wishart which says a lot how the game went if your utility bench bloke is one of your best

… 59 tackles even as third man in (which he wasn’t for ALOT) is still a shitload of work. He also scored their only try… I mean to each their own but can’t see at all what you’re saying here.

Munster did bigger all and made two massive errors, just can’t see how anyone thought he was good.

 

[phantom13]

Do they not give benefit of the doubt to the attacker? Can't remember what refs call was.

Gutted though

Benefit of the doubt goes purely with the refs call which was no try.

 

[nobbyiscool]

This bit is true though

It is true - anyone who has been to games at Swan St knows this. It's like going to a Swans game in Sydney, where (for the fans) a deep understanding of the game is of secondary importance to the spectacle of being there and supporting the extraordinarily well marketed local team that shouldn't be as consistently good as they are, thriving against the hated heartland of the sport.

I never considered it a negative that you go to Storm games and the majority of their fans don't know the rules, nor do they particularly care to. It's a really unique environment that doesn't exist anywhere else in rugby league, and the Swans are the only comparable team I can think of in any code. (Swans fans probably have a deeper understanding of the game, but in terms of the spectacle being the primary attraction, it's an apt comparison.)

It remains what it is though - the majority of Storm fans, in my experience of living in Melbourne for 9 years as a crazy rugby league fan, don't understand the rules...

Or biomechanics and how their own wrists bend, apparently.

 

[damicky]

It is true - anyone who has been to games at Swan St knows this. It's like going to a Swans game in Sydney, where (for the fans) a deep understanding of the game is of secondary importance to the spectacle of being there and supporting the extraordinarily well marketed local team that shouldn't be as consistently good as they are, thriving against the hated heartland of the sport.

I never considered it a negative that you go to Storm games and the majority of their fans don't know the rules, nor do they particularly care to. It's a really unique environment that doesn't exist anywhere else in rugby league, and the Swans are the only comparable team I can think of in any code. (Swans fans probably have a deeper understanding of the game, but in terms of the spectacle being the primary attraction, it's an apt comparison.)

It remains what it is though - the majority of Storm fans, in my experience of living in Melbourne for 9 years as a crazy rugby league fan, don't understand the rules...

Or biomechanics and how their own wrists bend, apparently.

Which of your heads believes the crap that you post?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

… 59 tackles even as third man in (which he wasn’t for ALOT) is still a shitload of work. He also scored their only try… I mean to each their own but can’t see at all what you’re saying here.

Munster did bigger all and made two massive errors, just can’t see how anyone thought he was good.

Struggling to think of a single Melbourne player that was good. Muster being a 6.5 to 7/10 is about the most you could give any of them and Hughes was half that made some errors but was trying to be creative.

Mistake was early on why start a bench prop? Welsh can play big minutes as a middle why wasn’t he starting?

 

[nobbyiscool]

Again, that angle absolutely doesn’t show the ball held up. If they had a reverse angle it might.

Also look at the direction his body is being rolled in the tackle. Onto the ball.

To be clear I still think that’s a try but as I’ve said all along I have no issue with it being no try, the call was no try and it’s fair to say that’s not definitive to over rule it but the bunker saying that definitely shows him held up isn’t correct and your carry on about it isn’t either.

You are being utterly obtuse still trying to argue that it wasn't held up - look at the direction the ball is pointing, that's almost as conclusive as you could get trying to assess a 3D game from a 2D image with 5 guys on the ball.

 

[phantom13]

You keep saying biomechanics of his wrist…

If anything is under the ball keeping it completely off the ground it’s his forearm not his wrist, and it doesn’t have to bend from there to get the ball down. Ala



See how Harry’s arm is under the ball here but there’s a shitload of other ball surface area still on the ground.

Thats what it looks like happened with Howarth to me.

I’m quite happy to say on field no try going up and not being overturned is absolutely a suitable outcome but it’s not definitive at all

 

[nobbyiscool]

Which of your heads believes the crap that you post?

Naaw, I feel so bad for you that this sounded funny in your head!

Are you 12? Go to bed.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Do they not give benefit of the doubt to the attacker? Can't remember what refs call was.

Gutted though

No. That was canned two years ago was a terrible rule for all fans where defenders had no chance.

Ref makes an on field call, and the bunker/VR whatever you want to call it only can overturn IF there’s conclusive evidence why the original call is incorrect

 

[nobbyiscool]

You keep saying biomechanics of his wrist…

If anything is under the ball keeping it completely off the ground it’s his forearm not his wrist, and it doesn’t have to bend from there to get the ball down. Ala

View attachment 2133768

See how Harry’s arm is under the ball here but there’s a shitload of other ball surface area still on the ground.

Thats what it looks like happened with Howarth to me.

I’m quite happy to say on field no try going up and not being overturned is absolutely a suitable outcome but it’s not definitive at all

Sorry man, his arm has disappeared, which according to you is a thing - so I can't tell.

 

[damicky]

Naaw, I feel so bad for you that this sounded funny in your head!

Are you 12? Go to bed.

You are being a d**khead

I am not in the mood for humour

 

[phantom13]

You are being utterly obtuse still trying to argue that it wasn't held up - look at the direction the ball is pointing, that's almost as conclusive as you could get trying to assess a 3D game from a 2D image with 5 guys on the ball.

I’m actually not at all.

My point has never been that he absolutely got the ball down, I still think it looks like he did but I can’t catagorically say that.

The issue with the argument you’re making and the misguided use of the biomechanics thing is that you’re still saying you think THAT angle alone is definitive and it’s absolutely not. Unless you think Howarths arm is as wide as the entire surface area of the ball and that the ball can’t warp and the ground doesn’t have any give it’s impossible to say that he doesn’t get that thing onto some grass.

Only one person in this discussion is speaking in absolutes about it and it ain’t me.

 

[Ohitsthatguy]

lol people still going on about that non-try

It wouldn't have mattered, The Storm were awful, no forwards

 

[phantom13]

Sorry man, his arm has disappeared, which according to you is a thing - so I can't tell.

At this point I can’t tell if you’re trolling or genuinely dumb, either way it seems like it’s jumped the shark.

 

[phantom13]

nobbyiscool

You’re gonna catagorically, 100%, without any doubt whatsoever tell me that this ball doesn’t shave a blade of grass? Cause that’s your argument here



Bearing in mind I’m ABSOLUTELY fine with no try for insufficient evidence to overturn the on field no try.

 

[PJays]

I’m quite happy to say on field no try going up and not being overturned is absolutely a suitable outcome but it’s not definitive at all

This is what is worth a discussion in all sports

Should we Forget "benefit of the doubt" forget going with umpires call unless it's "definitive".

If you're going with a review system, maybe go with simple probability or don't bother at all.