What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

'12 | R1 | Sat | Raiders 19-24 Storm | Canberra

Round 1 result: Raiders v Storm


  • Total voters
    52
  • Poll closed .

Lowdown

Juniors
Messages
1,062
its like an alien robot trying to talk about NRL. beep boop i calculated X amount of slow tackles beep boop when just watching the game you can see melbourne wrestle away.

f**k this argument is getting really old. Every team tries to do the same thing you genius. Get it?
 

northwest9

Juniors
Messages
1,864
f**k this argument is getting really old. Every team tries to do the same thing you genius. Get it?

but its melbourne, waaa, they cheat cause they slow down the play the ball with tackles legal in the current play book, waa, melbourne waaa, we have a shit coach who is unimaginative waaaa, bellamy comes up with too much new stuff for us to keep up with waaaaa

its tiring isnt it
 

Walt Flanigan

Referee
Messages
20,727
Raiders were ripped off

Chris Wilson
March 6, 2012


Melbourne Storm players celebrate after Billy Slater scored a try to put them ahead during the round one NRL match between the Canberra Raiders and the Melbourne Storm at Canberra Stadium on Saturday. It's official, the Canberra Raiders were robbed.

More NRL whistle-blowers face the axe this morning after admissions from referees coach Russell Smith that two try-scoring calls against the Raiders on Saturday night were officially wrong.

After completing his video review of the match yesterday, Smith said Blake Ferguson's no-try in the 37th minute should have been awarded to Canberra, while Cooper Cronk's try for Melbourne in the seventh minute should have been disallowed.

The calls were potentially a 12-point turn-around against the Raiders, who lost 24-19 after Storm fullback Billy Slater scored the winning try in the dying minutes.

Raiders coach David Furner was still fuming yesterday, but he refused to distract his team's preparation from this Saturday's match against the Titans on the Gold Coast.

Asked if officials should be sacked over the blunders, Furner said: ''That's for [referees coaches] Stuart Raper and Bill Harrigan to work out, but I'd like to have something done because we can't get the two points back.

''Someone has to be accountable, I am.

''With that against us, I'm very proud of the way my players fought back to take the lead in the second half and we nearly had the opportunity to win the game. I can't change the result now, we've got to look at this week and turn our focus to winning against the Titans.''

Referee Jared Maxwell and touch judge Jason Walsh were yesterday stood down for their golden-point error which denied the Cronulla Sharks an opportunity to win against the Wests Tigers.

Smith said Harrigan and Raper would decide today whether any officials from the Canberra game would be reprimanded.

''We've got to assess that as a management,'' Smith said. ''Obviously that [the wrong calls] has an impact in a close game like that was. We've got to look at that in the cold light of day tomorrow before they [Harrigan and Raper] conclude the appointments and they'll make the decision as to whether they believe any further action needs to be taken.''

While the no-try ruled against Ferguson has received the most publicity, it is the try awarded to Cronk that could be subject to more scrutiny by the NRL referee bosses.

Cronk grubbered ahead and, following a deflection, reached around Canberra's Terry Campese to score.

The decision was referred to video referee Phil Cooley, who ruled a try.

However, Melbourne prop Bryan Norrie was clearly in front of Cronk at the time of the kick and continued to chase the ball, diving and almost scoring himself.

Smith said Norrie should have been ruled off-side because he had continued have an impact on play.

''I believe that should have been a no-try,'' Smith admitted. ''In my opinion Bryan Norrie is certainly within 10m of Terry Campese.

''You could even argue his visual impact on Campese … you would think Campese would have felt his presence. So in my opinion we've got to have deemed he was inside the 10m and he wasn't passive [in the play].''

While the mistake in the Cronk try was a blatant ruling error, Smith said the decision against Ferguson was a judgment call.

Ferguson looked to have given the Raiders a lead by crashing over in the corner, but the try was disallowed because of a contentious forward-pass call against halfback Josh McCrone.

Smith admitted he was concerned that control referee Brett Suttor had taken the advice of pocket-referee, Gavin Badger, instead of the touch judge who was in better position.

The touch judge ruled the pass was legitimate. ''I believe it should have been a try,'' Smith said.

''There's going to be some momentum in a pass of that distance when there's a guy running forward at speed like McCrone was.

''So my opinion is that's a fair pass.

''He [the touch judge] has got a better view of the hands and in his opinion he believes the ball came out of the hands backwards.''

Furner would only say that he was ''extremely disappointed''.

''Take the touch judges away if they can't make that call,'' he said.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...-ripped-off-20120305-1uesd.html#ixzz1oI6qBivV
 

Pete Cash

Post Whore
Messages
61,938
See not only are they grubby you have to deal with the refs who at best will allow Cameron smith to forward pass all game and at worst will just completely favour Melbourne. Boo.
 

Lowdown

Juniors
Messages
1,062
See not only are they grubby you have to deal with the refs who at best will allow Cameron smith to forward pass all game and at worst will just completely favour Melbourne. Boo.

And what was the penalty count again? 8 - 5 Raiders I believe. But hey...you clearly know best.

Watch the game again and check out the Raiders passes, especially in the first half, if you want to see some great examples of forward passes from dummy half.

But I do recommend you remove the blinkers first, grow a brain second, and wash the sand out of your vah-gee-gee third.

Best of luck for the rest of the season.
 

skeepe

Immortal
Messages
46,141
And what was the penalty count again? 8 - 5 Raiders I believe. But hey...you clearly know best.

Watch the game again and check out the Raiders passes, especially in the first half, if you want to see some great examples of forward passes from dummy half.

But I do recommend you remove the blinkers first, grow a brain second, and wash the sand out of your vah-gee-gee third.

Best of luck for the rest of the season.

Cronk's try should never have been awarded according to the NRL.

But no, you didn't get any favours...
 

Walt Flanigan

Referee
Messages
20,727
He's just upset because he thought his team had a well earned, hard fought victory and now realises that it's tainted.
 

Pete Cash

Post Whore
Messages
61,938
And what was the penalty count again? 8 - 5 Raiders I believe. But hey...you clearly know best.

Watch the game again and check out the Raiders passes, especially in the first half, if you want to see some great examples of forward passes from dummy half.

But I do recommend you remove the blinkers first, grow a brain second, and wash the sand out of your vah-gee-gee third.

Best of luck for the rest of the season.

:lol:

the NRL stated that the Cronk try and the Ferguson no try were incorrect decisions. The refs got you home. Pelican.
 

Lowdown

Juniors
Messages
1,062
:lol:

the NRL stated that the Cronk try and the Ferguson no try were incorrect decisions. The refs got you home. Pelican.

Please post the link to where the NRL state the Ferguson no try was wrong?

It's round 1 and you guys are carrying on like you lost a grand final on a refs call. You guys really need to get over your complex and move on.
 

skeepe

Immortal
Messages
46,141
Please post the link to where the NRL state the Ferguson no try was wrong?

It's round 1 and you guys are carrying on like you lost a grand final on a refs call. You guys really need to get over your complex and move on.

My pleasure

It's official, the Canberra Raiders were robbed.

More NRL whistle-blowers face the axe this morning after admissions from referees coach Russell Smith that two try-scoring calls against the Raiders on Saturday night were officially wrong.

After completing his video review of the match yesterday, Smith said Blake Ferguson's no-try in the 37th minute should have been awarded to Canberra, while Cooper Cronk's try for Melbourne in the seventh minute should have been disallowed.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/raiders-were-ripped-off-20120305-1uesd.html
 

Butters

Bench
Messages
3,899
Nothing wrong with the Cooper Cronk try.

Apparently someone was offside from the kick, but Cooper Cronk kicked the ball and put every onside pretty much straight away before any Melbourne players were even near the ball. The refs have forgotten their own rules. :roll:
 

Raider_69

Post Whore
Messages
61,174
unfortunately butters that is not the case
Cronk kicked the ball, a front rower (cant recall who) was in front of him and persued the ball. Had that player in front of cronk played a passive role in tha play, you would be correct, the second cronk kicked it and that offside player moves forward, he is deemed to be active in the play, and inside the 10 metres. It's a clear cut penalty, and a no try, as the referee's boss has stated. Not only was he active in the play, he was in front of cronk for most of the play, he almost beat both Campese and Cronk to the footy. He was in front of the kicker, inside the 10 and playing an active role in the play. That is a textbook no try penalty.

Which is why Phil Cooley wont be given a referee's appointment in round 2. He cocked it up, as did the pocket referee for incorrectly ruling a forward pass on the Ferguson no try.

10 point swing in a game lost by 5. Its not quantum physics to see these blantant, very simple but incorrectly ruled decisions had a major impact on the outcome of the game. It's unacceptable.

Based on round 1, the refereeing standards continue to dip year after year, round 1, with two games decided by incorrect calls.
 
Last edited:

Butters

Bench
Messages
3,899
unfortunately butters that is not the case
Cronk kicked the ball, a front rower (cant recall who) was in front of him and persued the ball. Had that player in front of cronk played a passive role in tha play, you would be correct, the second cronk kicked it and that offside player moves forward, he is deemed to be active in the play, and inside the 10 metres. It's a clear cut penalty, and a no try, as the referee's boss has stated. Not only was he active in the play, he was in front of cronk for most of the play, he almost beat both Campese and Cronk to the footy. He was in front of the kicker, inside the 10 and playing an active role in the play. That is a textbook no try penalty.

Which is why Phil Cooley wont be given a referee's appointment in round 2. He cocked it up, as did the pocket referee for incorrectly ruling a forward pass on the Ferguson no try.

10 point swing in a game lost by 5. Its not quantum physics to see these blantant, very simple but incorrectly ruled decisions had a major impact on the outcome of the game. It's unacceptable.

Based on round 1, the refereeing standards continue to dip year after year, round 1, with two games decided by incorrect calls.

If that were the case there'd be a penalty every time a team kicked the ball away at the end of their set. Seems to be a rule they only enforce when they feel like it.
 

skeepe

Immortal
Messages
46,141
If that were the case there'd be a penalty every time a team kicked the ball away at the end of their set. Seems to be a rule they only enforce when they feel like it.

I get the feeling you don't understand the rule. You're not a referee are you?
 

Raider_69

Post Whore
Messages
61,174
If that were the case there'd be a penalty every time a team kicked the ball away at the end of their set. Seems to be a rule they only enforce when they feel like it.

It's a pretty simple rule of the game which you have failed to remotely understand

if a player is infront of the kicker and inside the 10 metres, he must be playing a passive role in the play. IE, standing still or retreating. Should he advance toward the football, he is deemed to be active in the play and should there for be penalised.

Its not a complicated matter
 
Top