Post Match Warriors Beat Storm 30-22!

Game Information

Vs

01 Jan 1970 12:00
minute

Who was your MoM?


  • Total voters
    120

Danpatmac

Guest
Actually makes sense why Lowrie spent more time on than Mateo. Lowrie is a much better tackler and the Storm were pretty good on attack when they had the ball!

I actually think the ref was right on that one. Simon said the Storm player played the ball on the 10, the player was actually a couple of metres in front of the 10 and so the Warriors were technically not back with the ref.
It was pretty clear on the replay.

looks offside to me.
1.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: fizurg and Est95

KPWarrior

Contributor
My honest opinion after the game was I thought we were lucky to get them coming off the bye with a trip to Auckland, if they'd had even one game before facing us I think some of their set plays might have had a bit more polish, I wouldn't want to be a Raiders fan this week, regardless of their home record!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sup42

gREVUS

Long live the Rainbows and Butterflies
Contributor
While I think it was a penalty, getting in the refs face vocally early may have paid big dividends on the way they got treated for the rest of the game. It was very Ennis come campuses style of captancy
 
I thought we got the rub of the green with penaltys yesterday,normally the toucheys and refs don't Pick up the forward passes im glad they did this time.i thought refs got most of the 50/50 calls right IMO,it does help to have 20 odd thousand screaming warrior faithfull in their ears every set tho
 
well that picture has two players offside. I was always taught to be in line with the referee regardless of how far back it is. That looks like a fair panalty.

No wonder there is confusion. The ARL rules state that the players must retire 10m (does mention about the refs showing where 10m is) but the 2013 NRL Laws & Interpretations says the players must line up with the ref marking 10m. What happens then when the ref is taking them back 12m?

For your further reading pleasure:

Pages 29 & 30 of https://www.nrl.com/portals/nrl/RadEditor/Documents/NRL13_0408_2013 NRL Law Book_FA.pdf

Page 6 of https://www.nrl.com/portals/nrl/RadEditor/Documents/NRL13_0408_2013 NRL Law Book_FA.pdf
 
No wonder there is confusion. The ARL rules state that the players must retire 10m (does mention about the refs showing where 10m is) but the 2013 NRL Laws & Interpretations says the players must line up with the ref marking 10m. What happens then when the ref is taking them back 12m?


When the ref marks them back 12 mts then Simon Mannering gives the ref a penality.
 
All in all I thought the referees were OK, especially when you compare it to some of the crap they have served up. It was fair both ways. The contentious one was Locke. I could see it the refs way. You can't use knees in a tackle. Deliberate or not the knees caused the drop, fair penalty IMO
 
All in all I thought the referees were OK, especially when you compare it to some of the crap they have served up. It was fair both ways. The contentious one was Locke. I could see it the refs way. You can't use knees in a tackle. Deliberate or not the knees caused the drop, fair penalty IMO

Like you, I thought the refs had a good game, and although I moaned at Lockes penalty when I was at the game further review shows me that the refs got it right.
If it had of been Slater doing it to us we would have demanded a penalty try.
I guess we need to open both eyes sometimes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: koolkat
Like you, I thought the refs had a good game, and although I moaned at Lockes penalty when I was at the game further review shows me that the refs got it right.
If it had of been Slater doing it to us we would have demanded a penalty try.
I guess we need to open both eyes sometimes.


There seems to be a bit of a ground swell over here with a lot of people having the Warriors as their second preferred team. That is because of the brand they play and people genuinely want to see them in the 8. People like Tallis are talking them up now and whereas before the refs could take the 'too bad, too sad' approach as the Warriors are in NZ, now they have support they have to be on their games because now they will cop Aussie flak for their performances. All good.
 
If it were Slater we'd probably be calling for a penalty try. They were probably a little hard done by, imo. I think that's probably a case to use penalty try if they rule that Locke went in with the knees. Happy a big call like that went our way though.

maybe, but only because Slater has a history of being a dirty pr*ck... Locke had nowhere to go, it was unfortunate his knees made contact with O'Neill, but O'Neill did dive in front of his legs... (cynical side of me says O'Neill should have dropped the ball 20 metres earlier because he plays for the storm ;) )
 
  • Like
Reactions: Miket12
There seems to be a bit of a ground swell over here with a lot of people having the Warriors as their second preferred team. That is because of the brand they play and people genuinely want to see them in the 8. People like Tallis are talking them up now and whereas before the refs could take the 'too bad, too sad' approach as the Warriors are in NZ, now they have support they have to be on their games because now they will cop Aussie flak for their performances. All good.

Yes the support has grown and even my old mate Freddie tipped us to beat the Storm last week and Sterlo has always been a fan.
The Storm, like the Broncos did for a long while, receive a fair bit of leeway as they are in an AFL fortress.
The idea of the Broncos and the Storm teams was to spread the game right across Australia and if the Storm continued to lose then Melbourne fans would quickly switch back to AFL and hence the game would not grow.
NZ on the other hand has a fairly good chunk of league players and fans so we do not need the special treatment and therefore have to stand on our own two feet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rick O'Shay and edd
All in all I thought the referees were OK, especially when you compare it to some of the crap they have served up. It was fair both ways. The contentious one was Locke. I could see it the refs way. You can't use knees in a tackle. Deliberate or not the knees caused the drop, fair penalty IMO
Agreed on the Reffs , in fact I can't see how the Knees didn't cause the loss of the ball in the act of scoring a Try.

No Knee in the back = no dropped ball. Storm fans were spewing. Fair enough too , if it happens in reverse I expect the Warriors to be awarded a penalty Try in that scenario.

That reffing partnership is a potential boon for the Warriors and all the early season angst set up up Matt Elliot with the Refs bosses could see us get those two a fair bit in the critical games.

They know our style , one is a kiwi and Perenara is steadily becoming more assertive in games , he gets it wrong both ways but he's getting the respect of his opposite.

I read a fan comment on another site ( can't remember which club / Broncos HQ bandwagon 2nd team thread I think ) and this person listed the reasons they can't stand the Warriors ( many Broncos fans have a real soft spot for the Warriors ) but what caught my eye was the comment :

" and their captain is a sook "


Good stuff , Mannering is the new Ennis / the knew Gidley......good

To quote Mannering " Is it his fault he dived in front of his knees ? "
 
  • Like
Reactions: snake77 and koolkat

Inruin

Contributor
All in all I thought the referees were OK, especially when you compare it to some of the crap they have served up. It was fair both ways. The contentious one was Locke. I could see it the refs way. You can't use knees in a tackle. Deliberate or not the knees caused the drop, fair penalty IMO
I didn't think the locke one deserved a penalty. he didn't go in with his knees IMO even though he made contact with his knees. More deserving of a penalty were the Finch knees on Hurrell after he scored and friends knees on Cronk after he scored.
 
Agreed on the Reffs , in fact I can't see how the Knees didn't cause the loss of the ball in the act of scoring a Try.

No Knee in the back = no dropped ball. Storm fans were spewing. Fair enough too , if it happens in reverse I expect the Warriors to be awarded a penalty Try in that scenario.

While I agree in part - there's got to be some line that is drawn (I'm not saying I know where it is)... For example, if a player slips running into a tackle and ends up headbutting someone's knees - is that a penalty for a high shot or a knee in the head? Comes back to that origin decision as well - one of the Blues slipped and his head was about 3 feet head high, cops an arm in the chin and Qld is penalised... I understand the need to protect the head - but if they keep making decisions like that, we'll be coming back to voluntary tackles to get penalties soon...[DOUBLEPOST=1375133181][/DOUBLEPOST]
I didn't think the locke one deserved a penalty. he didn't go in with his knees IMO even though he made contact with his knees. More deserving of a penalty were the Finch knees on Hurrell after he scored and friends knees on Cronk after he scored.

Agree fully.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sup42
While I agree in part - there's got to be some line that is drawn (I'm not saying I know where it is)... For example, if a player slips running into a tackle and ends up headbutting someone's knees - is that a penalty for a high shot or a knee in the head? Comes back to that origin decision as well - one of the Blues slipped and his head was about 3 feet head high, cops an arm in the chin and Qld is penalised... I understand the need to protect the head - but if they keep making decisions like that, we'll be coming back to voluntary tackles to get penalties soon...[DOUBLEPOST=1375133181][/DOUBLEPOST]

Agree fully.
I get where you are coming from , but I tend to lean on the other side of the fence. Rather than leave it at the discretion of Reffs to decide what is accidental / deliberate......a set in stone rule that while not always correct in every scenario .....ends up being fair to all.

There seems to be a good attitude change across the league about divers / penalty milkers......fans hate it.....Officials and the media hate it......it's a form of bringing a contact sport into disrepute. After a period of players trying it on regularly the penalty milkers seem to have stopped the random dives after light taps on the face....( that behavior really pisses me off lol )
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gizzyfan and Jay M
I get where you are coming from , but I tend to lean on the other side of the fence. Rather than leave it at the discretion of Reffs to decide what is accidental / deliberate......a set in stone rule that while not always correct in every scenario .....ends up being fair to all.

There seems to be a good attitude change across the league about divers / penalty milkers......fans hate it.....Officials and the media hate it......it's a form of bringing a contact sport into disrepute. After a period of players trying it on regularly the penalty milkers seem to have stopped the random dives after light taps on the face....( that behavior really pisses me off lol )

If the rule was applied fairly, I'd be ok with it... Compare to Sunday though when Locke was penalised with no intent, vs Finch running into Hurrell - he knew he wasn't going to stop him scoring, that was a cheap shot - not penalised. Not going to comment on the Friend into Cronk space - because I doubt that would have been deliberate but don't know 100%... *EDIT* Locke had a legitimate chance of getting to O'Neill and stopping the ball being put down, Finch was never going to make it...

If Locke's knees hitting O'Neill was a penalty - then to be fair, Hurrell's should have been an eight point try... except IIRC, most eight point tries go against us ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sup42