You know what would've upset the rhythm of the game even more? Easts not playing from their own end. It was a terrible choice afaic. And it really conveyed a weakening mentality to the Cowboys. They would've been better off using the set to score a try, primarily. Or get a repeat set or kick a field goal.
No. He never got it down. Not on the line, anyway. It's a knock on afaic. Morgan and the Cowboys should not be punished for dislodging the ball in the act of trying to stop someone who's already clearly held. A bobble like that is an error in my books.
Do you realise your own team had just conceded 30 straight points in the space of 20 odd minutes? Not exactly in peak form defensively, were they? No, no, they should've backed their attack against a side which does concede a lot of soft tries. And at the very least they maintain field position, which is much more important with 20 minutes remaining. 20 minutes is a fucking eternity to defend a penalty goal.
The starting side when all on the field at the same time (first 30 mintues & last 20 minutes) conceded 0 points. Our bench got exposed last night big time but when our full team was on we looked quite strong defensively I can see why they wanted to back themselves. It's hard to be criticial of the decision one way or another IMO.
The game had completely switched and become an arm wrestle at that point. Taking the 2 point lead at that point was easily the right option. If it was right in front 100% of teams would've taken it, it was only cause it was close the sideline that it was questionable but with the way Maloney was kicking they figured it was the right option. During my watching rugby league history when the team doesn't take the 2 in situations like that about 90% of the time they fuck up in attack. The way the game panned out, it's already proven it was the correct option (if he got it) so there's no argument. And you had to be an idiot like Gus to think at that point there was gonna be another 3 tries in the game, the whole complexity had changed big time.
Yeh definitely agree with that, why I didn't find the option to take the 2 ridiculous. Cowboys had lost their momentum some what & the game was back in the balance.
Thurston may have milked it a bit, but that was the most obvious penalty ever. He hit him 5 minutes after the kick, it was a typical JWH dumb cunt stupid mistake. No way you can blame that on the refs.
I suppose you can argue it either way, what you guys are saying is fair enough but I just think that after pretty much 30 mins of getting dominated they really should have looked to maintain some territorial advantage over the Cowboys, build some pressure and grind out the win. Usually whenever teams look to just defend their lead to win instead of pressing for points they get beaten. If Maloney had of kicked that and then they made an error coming out of their own end they would have been done for.
Well, I actually don't think you looked that strong defensively in the last 20 but that's a side issue. My real point of contention is the following: It was Moa, Cordner (and Lui) who let Scott waltz over. It was Pearce who couldn't handle Cooper running the outside line. It was SBW who let Thurston through. And it was both them, Pearce and SBW, who let Thurston go through, incidentally, in that last 20 minute period you mentioned. http://youtu.be/zlXeZUJp-_c?t=1h15m24s Yeah, sure, having the best defenders out there makes a difference in controlling field position, and keeping the line organised and communicating and so forth. But these tries I mentioned had little to do with a dearth of those traits on the part of the substitution players. They were just poor attempts by blokes who really should've done better. I know you can say well the Cowboys may not have gotten in the field position for Scott to waltz over if, say, JWH had been out there. But the fact that every other starting Rooster was out there bar JWH, does not in the slightest absolve Moa and Cordner for this rubbish: http://youtu.be/zlXeZUJp-_c?t=1h6m23s So yeah, I think one can criticise the decision.
Not if you're going to use that sort of logic, no. Incidentally, if the right call is made on SKD, it's 32 all. So yeah that argument doesn't work at all. Hindsight is 20/20. And whilst the game may have changed complexion, it was still the first Roosters set after Scott leveled the scores up. The Roosters still looked a bit frail at that point. In fact they still looked frail afterwards too.
I worded that poorly. I wasn't suggesting they should've been looking for it. Merely that the marginal, less-than-one-score-lead would've been available anyway. I mean say the Chooks tap the ball and go for the try. Maybe they don't score but maybe they slide one into the in-goal and get a repeat set. And make the Cowboys tackle some more. And all of a sudden it's Easts who are looking likely and building pressure and it's the Cowboys being asked the questions. Then maybe if they don't think they're likely they can still pot a field goal. That's all I meant. It's a good deal more sensible to me than trying to protect a tiny lead with that much time remaining.
So much this ^. Playing to protect a 2 point lead with 20 to go, after you've just had 30 straight put on you, and now finally gotten prime field position, is bizarre to say the least.
This is a joke yeah? They got a repeat set from a dropout that was kicked 20m down-field from where it otherwise would've been.
Pfft ...let it go. Whether or not the drop out was from the goal line or the 20m line hardly comes into it when most kickers are kicking it over half way 9/10 anyway. The point remains....they received the ball back after taking a free shot at points and the momentum shifted not long after. As I said earlier, smart call.
That's absurd logic. And the momentum wouldn't have shifted if they scored or gone for a try and had tackle one where the penalty was given instead of 30 or 40m further down field? Doesn't even make sense.
