I see we have a new rule now

[Danish]

Wrong. Freddy even spoke to the referees boss after the game and they confirmed the call was correct.

Rothfield at his inept best.

The referee's boss confirmed that catching a ball that hasn't bounced out yet doesn't get ruled taken out by the player catching the ball? Do you have a source for that?

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

When old Phil Merlot-face sticks up for you, it should only confirm you weren't dudded at all.

You can tell an inept journalist when they say 'X team had this and this go wrong, which equals 12 points. They lost by >12, therefor Team X=dudded out of a win'.

The Roosters are losing games they should be winning because of their lack of focus.

If they still desire another title, they'll prove so.

Phillis often writes to suit his agenda and he's always hated us which is why the article is surprising. Maybe he's got something against Newcastle at the moment or Badger. Who knows?

 

[Rod]

The referee's boss confirmed that catching a ball that hasn't bounced out yet doesn't get ruled taken out by the player catching the ball? Do you have a source for that?

Freddy on yesterday's Footy Show.

Basically the way they referee it is if the player is clearly past the dead ball line when he catches it it is ruled as a 20m tap. Imagine an invisible wall vertically up from the dead line and if the player is clearly past that wall then he's ruled to not be carrying it dead. So it makes sense, for kicks that were clearly dead like on Friday while preventing the 'straddling' tactic that some people mentioned.

You actually see this a few times a week but it's only been made a big deal of because of Gould and Robinson.

 

[Penrose Warrior]

Phillis often writes to suit his agenda and he's always hated us which is why the article is surprising. Maybe he's got something against Newcastle at the moment or Badger. Who knows?

Yeah I wondered the same thing. Obvious where he's coming from on the Tigers stuff, given it is a nice way to fire a shot at Mayer for bringing in Brian Smith. And as soon as the Panthers lose another game, with a busted half, their best back out, a key 2nd rower out for the season etc it's straight into the Gould attack and the 'five-year plan'.

It's probably someone within the Roosters being nice to him. Seriously, that'd be all it would take. Politis must've bought him a bag of wine.

 

[meercat]

Even after that call the Knights have the ball on their own 20m line, why can't a serious contender like the Roosters stop the second worst attacking team in the competition running 80m to score, or was that the referees fault as well...

 

[Captain Apollo]

You have quite a few penalty magnets in your team like JWH and others have seemed to pick up from his example. There is no conspiracy, your team just doesn't emphasise discipline in the ruck. And last year proved they didn't have to.

Bran, you are ignoring the issue as you dislike the Rooster. This has not been going on for 1 or2 years, it has been going on for10+ years. Guys like JWH and Maloney were not playing for us then. This was brought up on the Sunday Footy Show some weeks back.

Newcastle deserved the win as they putplayed us. But to say the refereeing issue is nothing, you people are fooling yourselves. If it was your team in this boat you'd be screaming blue murder, but the Roosters? Shows to me that some of you are hypocrites.

 

[Danish]

Freddy on yesterday's Footy Show.

Basically the way they referee it is if the player is clearly past the dead ball line when he catches it it is ruled as a 20m tap. Imagine an invisible wall vertically up from the dead line and if the player is clearly past that wall then he's ruled to not be carrying it dead. So it makes sense, for kicks that were clearly dead like on Friday while preventing the 'straddling' tactic that some people mentioned.

You actually see this a few times a week but it's only been made a big deal of because of Gould and Robinson.

That is not the rule, and never has been the rule.

If Archer honestly gave this "invisible walls" explanation to Freddy then the game is in real trouble having a complete moron in charge of the refereeing.

Also, you do NOT see this a few times per week. That is just a flat out lie.

 

[Noname36]

Even Phil Rothfield feels sorry for us. You know we're being stitched up if that happens.

Oh cry me a f**king river. Don't be surprised when you don't get much sympathy, especially from supporters of clubs like the Knights or the Sharks that have real issues to deal with.

Every single supporter on here could name countless games or series of games where they felt their side was duded by the refs. I remember a season myself a few years back where the Knights conceded the most penalties out of everyone all season and were awarded the least. It happens to every club from time to time and the Roosters aren't immune from that or above it.

If a side is good enough they'll rise above it. Maybe instead of whinging the coach should be trying to improve their discipline? No side who's main forward consistently runs with their elbow raised into the opposition's throats has any right to question why the refs might not be fans of their play.

 

[Tommy Smith]

Once again, someone just ignored the overwhelming statistics over an EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME.

And like clockwork "cry me a f**king river"... I produced the facts. And they're overwhelming.

If people just want to say "boo hoo f**king Roosters" as a reply then good for them. Doesn't change the FACTS.

 

[Noname36]

Nobody said your FACTS weren't correct. However, in the grand scheme of things you'll struggle to find too many people who will garner sympathy over something like this when a lot of other clubs are facing much bigger issues.

Especially when a lot of people see the Rooster's penalty woes as mostly self-inflicted.

Don't forget the laughable free ride they get with the judiciary either.

 

[Meapro Ham]

For those who can't be bothered trawling through 8 pages of rubbish, this thread can be summed up as follows:

- Rooster fans think they get a raw deal from the refs
- Non rooster fans don't agree. Or don't care. Or both.

The end.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

The roosters might not defend their premiership this year but their fans will win the Whining merkin Cup for the 20th successive year.

 

[BCH]

Don't forget the laughable free ride they get with the judiciary either.

Please explain?

 

[Rod]

That is not the rule, and never has been the rule.

If Archer honestly gave this "invisible walls" explanation to Freddy then the game is in real trouble having a complete moron in charge of the refereeing.

Also, you do NOT see this a few times per week. That is just a flat out lie.

I never knew the rule properly or this interpretation they apparently have, I'm just relaying what I heard. I do think it makes sense but that's a different issue.

Plenty of times I've seen fullbacks/wingers not waiting for the ball to bounce over the dead ball line before picking it up and then taking it out for the 20m tap. Pretty hard for me to prove it on the internet but it's a frequent occurrence.

 

[interest88]

The ref's wanted the Knights to win that game.

 

[Noname36]

Please explain?

SBW's shoulder charge last year.

Should have gotten the same 7-10 weeks Snowden got when they set that precedent and wanted to get it out of the game.

But of course that was different because it was SBW and the Roosters needed him.

Anyway. You know what I mean. We're going off topic so I'll leave it there.

 

[BCH]

SBW's shoulder charge last year.

Should have gotten the same 7-10 weeks Snowden got when they set that precedent and wanted to get it out of the game.

But of course that was different because it was SBW and the Roosters needed him.

Anyway. You know what I mean. We're going off topic so I'll leave it there.

Your beef then is with the match review committee and not the judiciary....

 

[AlwaysGreen]

The ref's wanted the Knights to win that game.

Yep. Yet in the most emotional round of the year for the knights, riseforalex round, they obviously didn't want them to win :roll:

 

[BCH]

Yep. Yet in the most emotional round of the year for the knights, riseforalex round, they obviously didn't want them to win :roll:

Says who. The penalty count was 8 - 3 in the Knights favour.

 

[Maximus]

Last year the Roosters were able to put it all to one side, defend like no team in history ever has

You could include the Dragons' 3 finals games in 2010 and they would still have conceded less than the Roosters did in the regular season. Including finals they conceded 11.81 points per game.