Trainers on the field

[Perth Red]

He's 12m behind the play on the last tackle, wtf is he even doing out there? NRL needs to get its sht together and get them off the pitch and then get the sht rule sorted out.
$500mill a year and Todd cant get the most obvious stuff right, sheesh.

 

[Danish]

Yeah, hit in the Roosters attacking half.

if he was 6m further back and got hit it would have been Raiders ball.

Let's all pay no attention to Soliola barreling into Keary's legs on the 40m line.

 

[Perth Red]

Let's all pay no attention to Soliola barreling into Keary's legs on the 40m line.

You got 6 points instead of 2, stop complaining!

 

[bileduct]

Let's all pay no attention to Soliola barreling into Keary's legs on the 40m line.

Looks like incidental contact to me. Soliola is going in for a tackle with his arms in a wrapping motion, gets hit in the head and goes down, coming into contact with the legs. Play on.

 

[nick87]

Yeah, hit in the Roosters attacking half.

if he was 6m further back and got hit it would have been Raiders ball.

which just goes to prove what an utterly insane and ridiculous rule this is

 

[Mr Spock!]

No wonder the easts trainer had a big grin on his face, the prick.

 

[Crazyperpman]

Poor Blokes Devastated

 

[Danish]

Looks like incidental contact to me. Soliola is going in for a tackle with his arms in a wrapping motion, gets hit in the head and goes down, coming into contact with the legs. Play on.

Can't tackle the legs of a kicker. Penalty every time (well... almost).

Several players were suspended for it earlier this season

 

[bileduct]

Can't tackle the legs of a kicker. Penalty every time (well... almost).

Several players were suspended for it earlier this season

Referee standing two meters away didn't see it that way mate.

No charge from the match review committee either.

Play on.

 

[Danish]

Referee standing two meters away didn't see it that way mate.

No charge from the match review committee either.

Play on.

Ref also called last tackle after correctly adjudicating that a bomb didn't actually touch Tedesco and ruled a turn over. Ref was right there, hand in the air.

Play on

 

[bileduct]

Ref also called last tackle after correctly adjudicating that a bomb didn't actually touch Tedesco and ruled a turn over. Ref was right there, hand in the air.

Play on

Yeah, I saw his hand in the air, it was signalling six again.

 

[Danish]

Yeah, I saw his hand in the air, it was signalling six again.

Best look again. Might want to pass that advice onto Wighton too

 

[bileduct]

Best look again. Might want to pass that advice onto Wighton too

Wighton did look at the referee, he had his hand in the air signalling six again.

The game is called Rugby League, not Watch The Ref To See If He's Changed His Mind.

 

[nick87]

It’s incredible that roosters fans are actually trying to argue this line that a ball carrier is supposed to continuously look at the official to make sure he hasn’t changed his mind
Haha

honestly, like Annesley, the attempt of justifying it is more falling than the error itself

as a roosters fan there is nothing wrong with saying “yeah that was a shitty call.”

You don’t have to agree it cost the raiders the game (and it didn’t) but refusal to even concede the referees f**ked up here is incredible

 

[Perth Red]

Can't tackle the legs of a kicker. Penalty every time (well... almost).

Several players were suspended for it earlier this season

Yep should have been a penalty. A roosters 2 point lead (if he had kicked it) instead of a gifted 6.

 

[Danish]

I don't think any roosters fan doesn't think it was a shitty call.

What we find laughable is that some raiders fans think that it would have been a less shitty call to actually award 6 more tackles to your side despite us not touching the ball.

Once cummins jumped the gun on ruling 6 again, it was either correct the decision and try to minimise the damage, or fully lean into making a deliberately wrong call and gifting the raiders 6 more unearned tackles in prime attacking position. I'm glad they chose the latter.

Not Cummins fault your defence went to to water and conceded 80 odd metres in 3 tackles.

 

[bileduct]

I don't think any roosters fan doesn't think it was a shitty call.

What we find laughable is that some raiders fans think that it would have been a less shitty call to actually award 6 more tackles to your side despite us not touching the ball.

No, what we would have preferred is the referees to acknowledge they f**ked up and caused a disadvantage to the attacking team, and allowed us to replay the final tackle.

Except there's no provision in the rules to allow that, just as there doesn't seem to be a provision in the rules allowing a referee to change his decision mid-play.

So since the game was impacted and the fault was with neither team, seems the best option would be to have a scrum with the feed going to the attacking team. I'm sure this rule has been used before...

 

[Perth Red]

The most logical thing in this instance would be to treat the trainers as a player of that side, so it would have been play on (or offside if a rooster picked it up), that way the team whose dckhead trainer has got in the way suffers the consequence.

 

[Pete Cash]

It's still such a f**king dumb rule.

Replaying the previous play the ball should be only solution to something like this. Why should the team that just had an entire set of six and had their kick charged down get rewarded with another set of six just because their own trainer f**ks up?

A null tackle rule so long as the refs didn't over use it really could work for both situations that happened

 

[bileduct]

A null tackle rule so long as the refs didn't over use it really could work for both situations that happened

Would have also been nice in that game against the Sharks where that dopehat on the sideline put his flag up and then the Sharks strolled through to score after the Raiders had stopped playing.