NRL NRL 2024 - Grand Final Melbourne vs Penrith

[damicky]

Its still true.

As I said to Andronicus , that is irrelevant to whether it was a Try or not

 

[Andronicus]

As I said to Andronicus , that is irrelevant to whether it was a Try or not

Sorry, were you looking for more attention? Needed to tag me in a response to someone else?

 

[damicky]

Sorry, were you looking for more attention? Needed to tag me in a response to someone else?

You are a real piece of work

I didn’t want to mention you without tagging you … some other Flogs on here take offence to that

 

[Aucklander]

 

[PhatBoy]

Still don’t really get the blow up about the no try. Even if that ball touched the ground, 20 minutes earlier Ryan Papenhuyzen drops a ball through a loose carry, Penrith are penalised for stripping the ball, Melbourne get piggy backed upfield and score.

The Storm were slowing down the ruck from the start of the game onwards and while Penrith got a six again here and there, there was a dozen times they could have been given penalties or more repeat sets. It was obvious what was going on and while it was a gutsy effort the wanking about Melbourne being stiffed by refereeing is a joke.

 

[Pancakes]

Disgusting that Munster can bite someone in the GF, and not even a penalty, or even a suspension.
Storm always get looked after, this is another example.
What Munster did was disgusting, and a player on any other team would get 3+ weeks, but the Storm players apparently have a licence to be grubs on the field.

 

[PhatBoy]

Disgusting that Munster can bite someone in the GF, and not even a penalty, or even a suspension.
Storm always get looked after, this is another example.
What Munster did was disgusting, and a player on any other team would get 3+ weeks, but the Storm players apparently have a licence to be grubs on the field.

His accuser has said he is not 100 per cent certain but that it felt like a bite at the time. The footage is not great for Munster but not conclusive either.

What pissed me off is that his initial defence was that the arm was around his face: it happens in every second tackle. If that becomes a defence for biting, there will be 50 bites a game

 

[balmainforever]

His accuser has said he is not 100 per cent certain but that it felt like a bite at the time. The footage is not great for Munster but not conclusive either.

What pissed me off is that his initial defence was that the arm was around his face: it happens in every second tackle. If that becomes a defence for biting, there will be 50 bites a game

that defence didn't work for Flanagan though.

 

[PhatBoy]

that defence didn't work for Flanagan though.

Well it did to a degree: it saved him about 4 weeks realistically. It sure as hell won’t work with tackles as innocuous as that one last night though that’s for sure

 

[phantom13]

Still don’t really get the blow up about the no try. Even if that ball touched the ground, 20 minutes earlier Ryan Papenhuyzen drops a ball through a loose carry, Penrith are penalised for stripping the ball, Melbourne get piggy backed upfield and score.

The Storm were slowing down the ruck from the start of the game onwards and while Penrith got a six again here and there, there was a dozen times they could have been given penalties or more repeat sets. It was obvious what was going on and while it was a gutsy effort the wanking about Melbourne being stiffed by refereeing is a joke.

I reckon the papi tackle was a strip but the rest I agree with.

Penrith absolutely dominated the game stats wise and if not for some unbelievable goal line defence from the Storm should have been 4-5 tries up at halftime.

The right team won, regardless of the howarth call.

 

[Jatz]

Wife didn't end up delivering but missed the first half live. Since rewatched it.

Clear no try for the Storm. I will never understand why we don't get the same footage as the bunker though.

Turuva also didn't ground the ball for his try.

Disappointing we get basic ref errors in the biggest game of the year - I suppose why should that game be any different though...

Penrith were definitely the better of the two teams on the night. They're just utterly relentless.

 

[phantom13]

Wife didn't end up delivering but missed the first half live. Since rewatched it.

Clear no try for the Storm. I will never understand why we don't get the same footage as the bunker though.

Turuva also didn't ground the ball for his try.

Disappointing we get basic ref errors in the biggest game of the year - I suppose why should that game be any different though...

Penrith were definitely the better of the two teams on the night. They're just utterly relentless.

Its funny that no one seems to be mentioning this but someone did post the vision yesterday with the whole "his arm is under the ball" argument.

 

[Jatz]

Its funny that no one seems to be mentioning this but someone did post the vision yesterday with the whole "his arm is under the ball" argument.

I saw a slow mo clip of it and it was pretty clear it didn't hit the turf. I can see why everyone just assumed it had but again, it's the biggest game of the year - surely the bunker take the extra 30 seconds to confirm.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I saw a slow mo clip of it and it was pretty clear it didn't hit the turf. I can see why everyone just assumed it had but again, it's the biggest game of the year - surely the bunker take the extra 30 seconds to confirm.

I'm comfortable with the decision just wish they explained it to fans more. However it is going to be no try under the current interpretation.

 

[Jatz]

I'm comfortable with the decision just wish they explained it to fans more. However it is going to be no try under the current interpretation.

Turuva's? Not sure why anyone should be comfortable with it when it didn't hit the turf.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Turuva's? Not sure why anyone should be comfortable with it when it didn't hit the turf.

The no try probably could have been explained or at least the angle shown that the buner had. That said more than okay with the decision.

 

[Jatz]

The no try probably could have been explained or at least the angle shown that the buner had. That said more than okay with the decision.

We're talking about different tries here.

The decision for Howarth's was absolutely correct. Turuva's try should've been overturned.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

We're talking about different tries here.

The decision for Howarth's was absolutely correct. Turuva's try should've been overturned.

I am fine with that being awarded. I really wish they wouldn’t slow down put downs. If it looks a try just give it. Always looks worse in slow motion

 

[phantom13]

I saw a slow mo clip of it and it was pretty clear it didn't hit the turf. I can see why everyone just assumed it had but again, it's the biggest game of the year - surely the bunker take the extra 30 seconds to confirm.

Sort of speaks to the issue.

Turuva gets the benefit of the doubt because most people know that cradling the ball like that is how most guys go down to score a try and usually some part of the ball gets on the deck

Howarth holding it the same way isnt afforded the same benefit (because its sent up as a no try).

I can actually completely see the logic in how we landed on both outcomes and sort of dont take issue with them.

Its just funny to me that so many people saying Howarth is CLEARLY no try dont have any issue with Suravas.

 

[Jatz]

I am fine with that being awarded. I really wish they wouldn’t slow down put downs. If it looks a try just give it. Always looks worse in slow motion

I don't understand that mentality at all. This isn't the NFL, the ball must touch the grass to be awarded a try. In this instance, it hasn't. It should not have been awarded.

Nothing wrong with using slow motion if it gets the right result.

 

[Jatz]

Sort of speaks to the issue.

Turuva gets the benefit of the doubt because most people know that cradling the ball like that is how most guys go down to score a try and usually some part of the ball gets on the deck

Howarth holding it the same way isnt afforded the same benefit (because its sent up as a no try).

I can actually completely see the logic in how we landed on both outcomes and sort of dont take issue with them.

Its just funny to me that so many people saying Howarth is CLEARLY no try dont have any issue with Suravas.

That's the rule I'd change. Ref doesn't make a call when sent up, is only asked if the bunker can't find conclusive proof one way or the other.

In Howarth's case, there was conclusive proof it didn't hit the ground so wouldn't have mattered anyway.

 

[_Cerberus_]

As much as the try was a hot topic, in the end, the better team won. And that is coming from a Storm fan. Penrith were able to make gains to put them within scoring range often throughout the whole game. Where the Storm struggle to get it down the other end, minus a few patches. And perhaps the first 25 minutes of the second half. Storms defence held up the Panthers attacks very well, but Penrith defended the whole field better. And always looked the more likely of the two teams to score.

 

[phantom13]

That's the rule I'd change. Ref doesn't make a call when sent up, is only asked if the bunker can't find conclusive proof one way or the other.

In Howarth's case, there was conclusive proof it didn't hit the ground so wouldn't have mattered anyway.

Can you send this cause i keep seeing that it exists and i havent seen it yet (im not being a smartass, being absolutely genuine)

 

[Jatz]

Can you send this cause i keep seeing that it exists and i havent seen it yet (im not being a smartass, being absolutely genuine)

 

[Jatz]

This is the Turuva one.