'12 | Heritage R5 | Sat | Roosters 26-8 Warriors | Allianz

[vvvrulz]

That was the worst we've played in a long long time, and I'm including the Bronco's playoff match last year.

 

[vvvrulz]

What a carve up. This is what happens when one team plays a 13 metre "10" with a full rule book, and the other (i.e. not Australian) plays with a 7 metre "10" and no rules.

:lol:

Stop embarrassing us Warriors fans.

 

[Horrie Is God]

Very proud of our boys tonight..

We pressured the Warriors into mistake after mistake..

Props to JWH,MK & FNP who smashed the Warriors pack into submission..

Maubs & Taka both sensational & our lateral play was enormous..Ran the Warriors pack off their feet..

Pearce was outstanding too..

Mini showing there is life in the old dog yet..

3/5 now & in the 8..

This beer tastes gooooooood..

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

We didn't get "roughed up", our forwards were getting touched 0.5 seconds after they got hands on the ball. Be real. FFS.

Were you at the game? Doubt it. Sat on the 50m line, as usual. Warriors offside all night, Roosters offside all night, you're a little hoe like that bitch Eddie.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

Were you at the game? Doubt it. Sat on the 50m line, as usual. Warriors offside all night, Roosters offside all night, you're a little hoe like that bitch Eddie.

The Warriors were only kept in the game by the systematic carve up we copped off the officials. The Warriors were dreadful, especially Vatuvei who showed if you put some pressure on him, he is mentally very soft.

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

The Warriors were only kept in the game by the systematic carve up we copped off the officials. The Warriors were dreadful, especially Vatuvei who showed if you put some pressure on him, he is mentally very soft.

The merkins in pink kept the warriors in the game.We should've wrapped the game up sooner

 

[Lambretta]

At one point the ball went wide to a Warrior who knocked the ball one whilst being tackled by a Rooster

Archer blew a penalty to the Warriors.

Was the penalty for tackling a man without the ball, or something else?

The only reason I ask is because in real time it looked like the Rooster made contact about half a second after the Warrior had knocked the ball on.

If that's the case that means that Archer ruled that the tackle was made BEFORE the ball got there. In which case one of us (me or Archer) is seeing things. Or Archer ruled that 0.5 seconds is sufficient time to pull out of a tackle after a knock on occurs. Or the Rooster was penalised for something completely unrelated, such as wearing Red, White and Blue.

Explanation please

 

[Lambretta]

Late in the second half, the Roosters scored a try only for it to be called back for a penalty to the Warriors about 15 out from their own line.

The Roosters had bundled a Warrior into touch and he threw the ball in field and it went straight to a Rooster who ran in to score.

What was that penalty for? Was the Rooster deemed to be offside from a pass thrown backwards by a Warrior? Or was the penalty awarded for carrying on with movement after a tackle had been deemed to be completed?

Because neither of those explanations make sense. I'm trying to decide what we had done wrong

 

[Lambretta]

With the disallowed try in the first half - did the Rooster knock the ball into a Warrior, before it came back to him and he pushed it back?

That's the only explanation I could see for a knock on, as the ball went backwards from the contest to the ground.

If so - how could you see that on the footage? The image at the ground on the big screen didn't show it clearly enough and to us it looked ambiguous enough to be benefit of the doubt at worst. However on a clear screen there may have been a movement we couldn't see at the ground.

Honest answers please.

 

[Izz]

Late in the second half, the Roosters scored a try only for it to be called back for a penalty to the Warriors about 15 out from their own line.

The Roosters had bundled a Warrior into touch and he threw the ball in field and it went straight to a Rooster who ran in to score.

What was that penalty for? Was the Rooster deemed to be offside from a pass thrown backwards by a Warrior? Or was the penalty awarded for carrying on with movement after a tackle had been deemed to be completed?

Because neither of those explanations make sense. I'm trying to decide what we had done wrong

Don't think this was a penalty, but a knock-on call against SKD earlier in the play. There was no scrum because it was last tackle, so it was a play the ball on the ten. Ref must've deemed that Warriors hadn't used their advantage.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

My apologies people of the internet, got a bit out of control last night

 

[Chip Bayless]

It was a pleasure to be at this game - what a great win by the boys! An inept showing by the NZ Warriors helped our cause though that is not to take away from the Roosters. In all facets of the game we dominated and I congratulate all involved especially Brian Smith who notched his 300th career win.

NZ are still a premiership threat in my eyes though they need to find that consistency (as do we) in their game. This has always been the achilles heel for NZ teams.

p.s. Tautau Moga is warming to the task. Plenty to do, looks a little rusty in coming back to the game but he remainsTHE young player to be excited about in 2012 will be debuting soon.

 

[Iafeta]

Late in the second half, the Roosters scored a try only for it to be called back for a penalty to the Warriors about 15 out from their own line.

The Roosters had bundled a Warrior into touch and he threw the ball in field and it went straight to a Rooster who ran in to score.

What was that penalty for? Was the Rooster deemed to be offside from a pass thrown backwards by a Warrior? Or was the penalty awarded for carrying on with movement after a tackle had been deemed to be completed?

Because neither of those explanations make sense. I'm trying to decide what we had done wrong

Tackled before he got the ball... I personally thought it was a straight up knock on.

With the disallowed try in the first half - did the Rooster knock the ball into a Warrior, before it came back to him and he pushed it back?

That's the only explanation I could see for a knock on, as the ball went backwards from the contest to the ground.

If so - how could you see that on the footage? The image at the ground on the big screen didn't show it clearly enough and to us it looked ambiguous enough to be benefit of the doubt at worst. However on a clear screen there may have been a movement we couldn't see at the ground.

Honest answers please.

50/50 call, but it looked like it flicked Perrett's hand before going into Tupou, who then dropped it, so a knock on.

At one point the ball went wide to a Warrior who knocked the ball one whilst being tackled by a Rooster

Archer blew a penalty to the Warriors.

Was the penalty for tackling a man without the ball, or something else?

The only reason I ask is because in real time it looked like the Rooster made contact about half a second after the Warrior had knocked the ball on.

If that's the case that means that Archer ruled that the tackle was made BEFORE the ball got there. In which case one of us (me or Archer) is seeing things. Or Archer ruled that 0.5 seconds is sufficient time to pull out of a tackle after a knock on occurs. Or the Rooster was penalised for something completely unrelated, such as wearing Red, White and Blue.

Explanation please

Not a penalty. He ruled a knock on against SKD earlier in the play, Johnson only had the touchline to run down so he didn't get an advantage. Also, play stopped when Johnson went out before passing the ball, so irrespective of whether advantage had been taken or not it wouldn't have been a try.

 

[Lambretta]

Don't think this was a penalty, but a knock-on call against SKD earlier in the play. There was no scrum because it was last tackle, so it was a play the ball on the ten. Ref must've deemed that Warriors hadn't used their advantage.

Ahh, that explains it. Thanks for the explanation.

Is it a bird, is it a plane? No it's a Roosters error.

 

[Lambretta]

Tackled before he got the ball... I personally thought it was a straight up knock on.

I thought so too (and so did the Warriors fans sitting behind us who were pissing themselves laughing and then shrugging in embarrassment at the call)

I actually thought, watching it live and without the benefit of a replay, that the contact was made AFTER the knock on occurred, which was why I was confused.

At worst it was simultaneous, so once again, can't be called for tackling before ball arrives. I might have to watch a replay on TV to see if Mr Archer or myself have funny eyes.

 

[Lambretta]

Last question.

BunniesMan - Did you f**king well predict that scoreline?

 

[Alan Johnson]

roosters are something of a bogey team for us are they not?

 

[KeepingTheFaith]

I thought so too (and so did the Warriors fans sitting behind us who were pissing themselves laughing and then shrugging in embarrassment at the call)

I actually thought, watching it live and without the benefit of a replay, that the contact was made AFTER the knock on occurred, which was why I was confused.

At worst it was simultaneous, so once again, can't be called for tackling before ball arrives. I might have to watch a replay on TV to see if Mr Archer or myself have funny eyes.

I thought the penalty was for the Roosters being offside rather than tackling early. The Warriors went sideways on that play and yet the Rooster tackled Manu from behind when he got the ball. Would have to watch it again to know for sure, and i'm not in any hurry to watch that game again.

 

[KeepingTheFaith]

roosters are something of a bogey team for us are they not?

Hadn't we won five of the last 6 before last night?

Our bogey teams would be Manly and the Dragons. Teams who get physical in the middle of the field. Roosters replicated what those teams have been doing to us for the last few years and once again our lack of aggression shined through.

 

[Valheru]

With the disallowed try in the first half - did the Rooster knock the ball into a Warrior, before it came back to him and he pushed it back?

That's the only explanation I could see for a knock on, as the ball went backwards from the contest to the ground.

If so - how could you see that on the footage? The image at the ground on the big screen didn't show it clearly enough and to us it looked ambiguous enough to be benefit of the doubt at worst. However on a clear screen there may have been a movement we couldn't see at the ground.

Honest answers please.

He may well could have knocked that into the Warriors player but at best it was 50/50 in which case benefit of the doubt goes to the attack unless of course the team attacking is the roosters....