Re: Huddersfield Thoughts : Sun May 11, 2014 6:10 pm  

If ball was kicked from in field of play problem with leaving it is if it does not go dead then you have to run the ball out from further back so best option is to regather as early as possible unless it's certain to go dead, kick returns can be game changers look at wc semi and Sam tomkins. If it goes dead then it's an optional tap or drop from 20mtr

Re: Huddersfield Thoughts : Sun May 11, 2014 6:18 pm  

I'll bow to Micky's experience on this, but if Meliferra's question is in the context of Danny Brough's kick-off towards the end of the 1st half that was fumbled, had the ball been allowed to go out of the back of the in-goal area, having bounced in the field of play, Broncos would have been forced to drop out under the sticks.

Re: Huddersfield Thoughts : Sun May 11, 2014 6:30 pm  

If ball goes dead behind dead ball line from kick off ifit bounces first or touched by a defender it's a drop out from under the sticks
if it goes dead from a penalty be it an attempt at goalthat misses or a kick for touch that goes to far then it's a drop out from the 20 mtr line both cases the drop out has to travel 10mtrs before it can be touched.
Basically a good last kick option is high ball dropping just short of try line if you are close enough to have a chasers who can contest for the ball.
If not then a ball that hits the deck in between the fb and winger even better if you can get the ball to stop in goal.
In wet orrible slippy conditions keep it low force defenders to pick up a wet bobbling ball, in answer good tactics from udders

Re: Huddersfield Thoughts : Mon May 12, 2014 8:26 am  

I thought Saturday was a pretty good performance - obviously save for the schoolboy errors that cost us the game straight after half-time.

Grima keeps his better players on for much longer than Rea and I think this worked well: Moore, Vea and Cook are plenty fit enough to do long minutes. I was surprised to see McMeeken with the Skolars but I think we got more from the forwards than usual - Foster offering himself as a running option made a welcome change.

I thought Drinkwater was great with the ball in hand. The first time I've seen him talking and bossing the attack. Grima showing confidence in him in the week has probably helped. But he needs a stand-off and neither Farrar nor Cunningham are good enough at 6. Drinkwater and Bishay are the best pairing I've seen.

All in all, another chance for a win gone. But three winnable games coming up.

I think we are left with the diehard fans now but I would imagine that almost all of these would support a similar team with a real chance in a division below.

Re: Huddersfield Thoughts : Mon May 12, 2014 12:56 pm  

Sorry Listy, but I think you're being way too harsh. We lost the game during the five minute brain-fart at the start of the second half.

Personally I was impressed by the way we weren't being outflanked all the time, only one try came round the outside. Granted they waded through the middle a couple of times, but in general I thought the defensive effort was miles better than we've seen in the past, and definitely more organised.

As someone else has said, Danny Brough is one of the great kickers, not surprising that some of them were difficult to deal with, but we still mopped up more than we spilled.

They did look clueless with the ball at the end but it was obvious they were out on their feet.
And that tells its own story, they'd given 100% effort. How many times could we have said that in the last two seasons? This team gives more in 10 minutes than last year's did in a whole game.

Re: Huddersfield Thoughts : Tue May 13, 2014 9:37 am  

I really feel for you guys. London deserves a successful team.

Over in the NRL, the authorities came out with statements that they were going to fund Melbourne whether other clubs liked it or not because the city was too improtant to not have a successful RL team.

Food for thought, Messrs Wood & Rimmer?

Re: Huddersfield Thoughts : Tue May 13, 2014 9:39 am  

Ivor C&G Scarf wrote:

I really feel for you guys. London deserves a successful team.

Over in the NRL, the authorities came out with statements that they were going to fund Melbourne whether other clubs liked it or not because the city was too improtant to not have a successful RL team.

Food for thought, Messrs Wood & Rimmer?

We wish! Good to see you on Saturday.

Re: Huddersfield Thoughts : Tue May 13, 2014 10:15 am  

Ivor C&G Scarf wrote:

I really feel for you guys. London deserves a successful team.

Over in the NRL, the authorities came out with statements that they were going to fund Melbourne whether other clubs liked it or not because the city was too improtant to not have a successful RL team.

Food for thought, Messrs Wood & Rimmer?

Only worth doing if there is a viable business plan and effective management in place. The reason we're in the position we are is because of a total absence of either for several years.

Re: Huddersfield Thoughts : Tue May 13, 2014 5:41 pm  

Ivor C&G Scarf wrote:

I really feel for you guys. London deserves a successful team.

Over in the NRL, the authorities came out with statements that they were going to fund Melbourne whether other clubs liked it or not because the city was too improtant to not have a successful RL team.

Food for thought, Messrs Wood & Rimmer?

I've thought much the same. My view is that for RL in this country to try to compete with the RFU and NRL, it needs a successful London club and the commercial revenue that would come from it, and indeed the further expansion of the game. That said, I believe that the majority of RL fans in this country would prefer to maintain the status quo, with their team the big/medium fish in the small pond. To be fair, it's a view I can understand, even if I don't agree that it's in the sport's best interests.