Re: Hohaia : Sat Mar 07, 2015 12:23 am  

Saddened! wrote:

This is probably the worst I've ever seen Saints play. Utterly shocking.

Good job it was Wakey, christ they were awful

Re: Hohaia : Sat Mar 07, 2015 4:14 am  

Saddened! wrote:

Cummings is clueless. It's a clear try because the Wakey player doesn't touch it. Had Smith touched it Turner is offside but he doesn't so it's a free ball that is touched by the Wakey fullback and its play on from when it bounced.

Incorrect.

He was in the vicinity of the Wakey player attempting to catch it. Regardless of whether the Wakey player actually caught it or touched it, Turner's close presence is deemed to have effected play/player.

Re: Hohaia : Sat Mar 07, 2015 7:58 am  

ThePrinter wrote:

Incorrect.

He was in the vicinity of the Wakey player attempting to catch it. Regardless of whether the Wakey player actually caught it or touched it, Turner's close presence is deemed to have effected play/player.

Yes, I must admit I thought we were a little lucky with that one.

Re: Hohaia : Sat Mar 07, 2015 8:54 am  

Marginal call. It only the boot of the kick he has to be level with. I'd have given it offside on first viewing. Butt. In footy they can draw lines across. Maybe we should do the same. Clear it up a bit.

Re: Hohaia : Sat Mar 07, 2015 8:57 am  

I thought the Turner try decision was fair. It's true you have to be further than ten metres from the receiver when he touches it, if you start from an offside position. However, that's ten metres in a circle with the centre of that circle being the receiving player. In other words, the offside player must be at least ten metres in any direction. So when a man collects the ball, as soon as he's run 10m in any direction -sideways and backwards too - he is onside and can be tackled.

So Turner didn't have to be 10m further down the pitch. He just had to be 10m away from the catcher. As he was off to one side, the distance between him and the catcher was greater than 10m. Hence he was not penalised for offside even though he'd started in front of the kicker.

Then, of course, the wakey player touched the ball and lost possession, at which point everyone is instantly inside no matter where they started from.

Re: Hohaia : Sat Mar 07, 2015 9:03 am  

It was strange with lance. But hey we won and burns will be back to steady the ship.

Re: Hohaia : Sat Mar 07, 2015 9:47 am  

I've been one of the few thats stood up for lance in his stint here but last night he was poor. We lost all direction when he went to 9. He looked like a player that didn't know our plays at all which I know isht true. He was passing to wrong players, went wrong side , threw some murder balls and even passed to greenwood on 5th!

I understand he will be rusty but looked totally lost last night.

Re: Hohaia : Sat Mar 07, 2015 10:15 am  

St pete wrote:

I've been one of the few thats stood up for lance in his stint here but last night he was poor. We lost all direction when he went to 9. He looked like a player that didn't know our plays at all which I know isht true. He was passing to wrong players, went wrong side , threw some murder balls and even passed to greenwood on 5th!

I understand he will be rusty but looked totally lost last night.

Brinkmanship? That's a big suggestion.
However the number of wrong calls seemed something beyond rust.
The Sister Duffy Pass to Flanagan set the tone.

Best outcome is loaning him out if talk of him packing up at season end
and going to the States is true (NRL not an option).

Otherwise you come to an agreement on inclusion and game time
, isolate him make him train alone and give him every poop job his contract covers,
or pay him up.

Those are your choices

Re: Hohaia : Sat Mar 07, 2015 10:32 am  

Gerry Mander wrote:

Brinkmanship? That's a big suggestion.
However the number of wrong calls seemed something beyond rust.
The Sister Duffy Pass to Flanagan set the tone.

Best outcome is loaning him out if talk of him packing up at season end
and going to the States is true (NRL not an option).

Otherwise you come to an agreement on inclusion and game time
, isolate him make him train alone and give him every poop job his contract covers,
or pay him up.

Those are your choices

Very very harsh!

Lance was good last year and decent the year before. You need to remember, we signed him as a fullback to play 6! He played 6 with no out and out 7 so he struggled. He's also played 9 few times which he's been ok in the past but can't expect him just to play these roles like a veteran.

He needs more game time and Roby needs more rest or we will burn him out again. I think it's common sense to give lance more game time.

Don't forget, lance won us the grand final

Re: Hohaia : Sat Mar 07, 2015 10:53 am  

St pete wrote:

Very very harsh!

Lance was good last year and decent the year before. You need to remember, we signed him as a fullback to play 6! He played 6 with no out and out 7 so he struggled. He's also played 9 few times which he's been ok in the past but can't expect him just to play these roles like a veteran.

He needs more game time and Roby needs more rest or we will burn him out again. I think it's common sense to give lance more game time.

Don't forget, lance won us the grand final

I'm not the one who needs convincing.

There is definitely something between him and the coaching staff.
Passed over for bit part second rows and kept on the bench
as an absolute last resort. Matched by him having amnesia over patterns of play.
Think both parties need to take a moment.


Definitely a need for a second hooker running roby into the ground is folly.
This is not just a Lance thing, the reluctance to blood any youngster at 9
(Charnock etc) follows the same pattern.