'10 | WIL R16 | Sun | Warriors 20-18 Roosters | AMI Stadium, Christchurch

[Timmah]

Capacity at AMI is 36k, I think 20k might be accurate, give or take 1-2k who purchased tickets but didn't show.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Congratulations Warriors. You were the poorer team for the entire game, you were only still in the game because of an absolutely rubbish and blatantly biased video refereeing decision for your first try, and that four points ended up being the difference between a deserved loss and an undeserving win.

A rubbish video referee call and a fluke last minute try. Call if sour grapes if you will, but when an undeserving team wins a game in which the difference is due to a WRONG decision that everyone acknowledges except the man who pushed the button, then there is no way on earth that you should be proud of the result.

Consider it a win handed to you on a silver platter. All credit to Locke for what he did, and zero credit to Phil Graham on two occasions for showing very little commitment, but you shouldn't have been that close to begin with. Rorted.

yeah, Chris Ward has a long history of bias towards the Warriors :crazy:

 

[Raider_69]

i thought it was a fair enough decision to give BOTD for the first try

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

i thought it was a fair enough decision to give BOTD for the first try

Thanks Raiduh *hugz*

To call it "blatantly biased" is just spastic.

It's not one of those cases where a ref horribly misinterprets the rules or whatever. It's a very close, frame by frame type call, and I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who couldn't tell from the replays. This is exactly the situation where BOTD applies....

 

[Raider_69]

combining the above angle where you could see the dead ball line and with the one behind the dead ball line when you see him hit the ball, i thought it was pretty clear that it was BOTD try.

 

[pantherz9103]

I don't care that the Roosters had bad referee decisions go against them. They are a lazy Rugby League side. The Warriors aren't much better. How do you explain Phil Graham's inability to react properly, just expecting the ball to go dead or at the end with Locke charging through. The Roosters have some really lazy players so its hard to feel sorry for them. Kenny Dowall and Graham what shockers.

 

[Deleted member 10972]

I never said Ward was always biased. But that decision was so far from being the correct one.

Just watched the replay now on IQ, two of the three angles showed the ball and the line being in contact with eachother slightly before Locke's hand actually came in contact with the ball. Hence, when Locke actually grounded it, it was in contact with the line. Ward only briefly looked at these views, then went back repeatedly to the head-on view which was the ONLY view that came close to supporting the decision (but at the same time, did not in any way confirm it), and as that was the last perspective viewed before the decision was made, I am led to believe that Ward based his decision on this perspective.

Hence, it was the wrong decision, and cost the more deserving team a much-needed win.

 

[thommo4pm]

Congratulations Warriors. You were the poorer team for the entire game, you were only still in the game because of an absolutely rubbish and blatantly biased video refereeing decision for your first try, and that four points ended up being the difference between a deserved loss and an undeserving win.

A rubbish video referee call and a fluke last minute try. Call if sour grapes if you will, but when an undeserving team wins a game in which the difference is due to a WRONG decision that everyone acknowledges except the man who pushed the button, then there is no way on earth that you should be proud of the result.

Consider it a win handed to you on a silver platter. All credit to Locke for what he did, and zero credit to Phil Graham on two occasions for showing very little commitment, but you shouldn't have been that close to begin with. Rorted.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

And people say Canberra, Saints & Parra fans are whingers.
This bloke needs about 3 boxes of tissues to dry his eyes and clean up his dribble.
Warriors won 20-18.

Fact is Roosters were winning by 10 with 7 minutes to go.
they lost it.

 

[Dr Crane]

And Dr Crane, do you have to ruin EVERY Warriors match thread with your pissy bitching?

yes

 

[Raider_69]

I never said Ward was always biased. But that decision was so far from being the correct one.

Just watched the replay now on IQ, two of the three angles showed the ball and the line being in contact with eachother slightly before Locke's hand actually came in contact with the ball. Hence, when Locke actually grounded it, it was in contact with the line. Ward only briefly looked at these views, then went back repeatedly to the head-on view which was the ONLY view that came close to supporting the decision (but at the same time, did not in any way confirm it), and as that was the last perspective viewed before the decision was made, I am led to believe that Ward based his decision on this perspective.

Hence, it was the wrong decision, and cost the more deserving team a much-needed win.

Phil Graham cost you that game and that try. He had ample time to deal with the situation, he didnt do so, he got cute and had his pants pulled down.
fair try, stupid play.

 

[Deleted member 10972]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

And people say Canberra, Saints & Parra fans are whingers.
This bloke needs about 3 boxes of tissues to dry his eyes and clean up his dribble.
Warriors won 20-18.

Fact is Roosters were winning by 10 with 7 minutes to go.
they lost it.

f**k off mate. If Dragons had lost that in the same manner you would feel the same. But there would have been a big deal made out of it because the Dragons are a media-favorite.

Raider, Graham did lose us the game with that play, BUT regardless of whether he made the right choice or not, the rules are the rules. If a defending player makes a defensive decision and misses a tackle on an attacking player, but the attacking player puts his foot on the touch line, or knocks the ball on, then it isn't a try. Graham made a mistake letting it go, but the fact is that two of the three video ref views showed the ball coming in contact with the dead ball line. That doesn't warrant a BOD try, it warrants a no try.

Roosters fans are ripping into Graham, but it should have been a win to the Roosters anyway.

 

[Tommy Smith]

Im a Roosters fan and i was actually happy with the BotD call.

But yeah, the lack of urgency at the end by Graham/SKD was diabolical.

f**king shameful the way we lost that game after dominating in every way imaginable.

Surely no team is as hard to support this year as the Roosters. We're 7-7 with losses to every gumby team in the comp - Knights, Sharks, Cowboys, Warriors.

f**king painful. Truly, truly, epicly painful.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Congratulations Warriors. You were the poorer team for the entire game, you were only still in the game because of an absolutely rubbish and blatantly biased video refereeing decision for your first try, and that four points ended up being the difference between a deserved loss and an undeserving win.

A rubbish video referee call and a fluke last minute try. Call if sour grapes if you will, but when an undeserving team wins a game in which the difference is due to a WRONG decision that everyone acknowledges except the man who pushed the button, then there is no way on earth that you should be proud of the result.

Consider it a win handed to you on a silver platter. All credit to Locke for what he did, and zero credit to Phil Graham on two occasions for showing very little commitment, but you shouldn't have been that close to begin with. Rorted.

Cry much? Seriously I'll pay that the 1st try shouldn't have been awarded, but the Roosters 2nd was more of a fluke than Locke's last one, and while the Roosters were the better side for much of the match, they blew it at the death. I still feel for you guys though.

 

[Raider_69]

Raider, Graham did lose us the game with that play, BUT regardless of whether he made the right choice or not, the rules are the rules. If a defending player makes a defensive decision and misses a tackle on an attacking player, but the attacking player puts his foot on the touch line, or knocks the ball on, then it isn't a try. Graham made a mistake letting it go, but the fact is that two of the three video ref views showed the ball coming in contact with the dead ball line. That doesn't warrant a BOD try, it warrants a no try.

Roosters fans are ripping into Graham, but it should have been a win to the Roosters anyway.

I disagree
Graham got cute and it cost him a try. It wasnt an incorrect call, two replays showed that the ball was in play at a certain point of Locke's action, when cross referenced with the front on replay of when the ball was grounded in relation to his action, i thought it clearly showed that in all probability he got his hand to it before it went dead, thus BOTD try is the correct ruling.

So no, you shouldnt be ripping into him after a win, you should be ripping into him for costing you a win with a very ordinary piece of play that was rightly awarded a try.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Surely no team is as hard to support this year as the Roosters. We're 7-7 with losses to every gumby team in the comp - Knights, Sharks, Cowboys, Warriors.

f**king painful. Truly, truly, epicly painful.

Hang on, we're on the same points as you lot, so are you calling the Roosters gumbys as well?

 

[Geohood]

Im a Roosters fan and i was actually happy with the BotD call.

But yeah, the lack of urgency at the end by Graham/SKD was diabolical.

f**king shameful the way we lost that game after dominating in every way imaginable.

Surely no team is as hard to support this year as the Roosters. We're 7-7 with losses to every gumby team in the comp - Knights, Sharks, Cowboys, Warriors.

f**king painful. Truly, truly, epicly painful.

I KNOW... f**k!

 

[thommo4pm]

f**k off mate. If Dragons had lost that in the same manner you would feel the same. But there would have been a big deal made out of it because the Dragons are a media-favorite.

Raider, Graham did lose us the game with that play, BUT regardless of whether he made the right choice or not, the rules are the rules. If a defending player makes a defensive decision and misses a tackle on an attacking player, but the attacking player puts his foot on the touch line, or knocks the ball on, then it isn't a try. Graham made a mistake letting it go, but the fact is that two of the three video ref views showed the ball coming in contact with the dead ball line. That doesn't warrant a BOD try, it warrants a no try.

Roosters fans are ripping into Graham, but it should have been a win to the Roosters anyway.

:lol: :lol:
Yes the Dragons are media favourites. :roll:

Nothing like you getting stuck into the Warriors and telling them they didn't deserve it.

 

[Dr Crane]

Hang on, we're on the same points as you lot, so are you calling the Roosters gumbys as well?

haha, no kidding.

 

[Iafeta]

combining the above angle where you could see the dead ball line and with the one behind the dead ball line when you see him hit the ball, i thought it was pretty clear that it was BOTD try.

Yep. I was sitting with a group who were saying "yeah, but where's the control?" Is it now not the case that you only have to get the ball on the ground with pressure, irrespective of control?

BOTD try was the correct call. Fairly simple really.

 

[Raider_69]

Yep. I was sitting with a group who were saying "yeah, but where's the control?" Is it now not the case that you only have to get the ball on the ground with pressure, irrespective of control?

BOTD try was the correct call. Fairly simple really.

never have and probably never will need control of the ball in this instance
the ball was on the ground, all he hand to do was get downward force on it, it wasnt in the air so the control or separation debate doesn't even come into play