'12 | Origin 1 | Wed | NSW 10-18 QLD | Etihad

[BDR]

And so it ends. With a whimper and under a cloud, in a State without a dog in the fight.

Sigh.

Sums it up for me. Origin isn't rugby league anymore, the players are allowed to get away with so much shit it doesn't even resemble what you see in any other Rugby League game. The passion is dying because NSW are a bunch of cripples. The administrative decisions to appoint certain referees and to take matches to Melbourne is an absolute farce.

The main thing for me last night was the ruck, it was f**king disgusting from whistle to whistle. Holding down, working players over, crowding with the knees. What is even more infuriating is the inconsistency, both Stewart and Harrison copped penalties that were no different to about 20 other tackles that went unpunished.

It was an ugly game, shit to watch and the only talking point will be the referees. Worst Origin I've seen in a long time.

 

[BDR]

Also the thread title change is pretty low, I suppose that's to be expected from the mods around here though.

 

[Jobdog]

Also the thread title change is pretty low, I suppose that's to be expected from the mods around here though.

:lol: Strike a chord?

I'll admit I did it. Lighten up.

 

[MacDougall]

The referees were atrocious. In honesty the Inglis try could have been given benefit of the doubt I suppose but I would say that he knocked it on after Farah dislodged it anyway but that wasn't the worst of it.

They made a decision by sin binning Jennings that the game was going to be played by club rules not your average origin rules. Yet they allowed Hayne to punch Thurston in the face and suffer no repercussions and proceeded to penalise Greg Bird for a tackle that would have been a 50/50 even in a club game. They then chose not to award Uate a penalty for the elbow from Smith, that in normal origin circumstances I'd be okay with allowing, but they had already set precedents early in the game via the Bird penalty and the Jennings sin-bin. It doesn't matter that Uate was airborne and falling, the onus is on the tackler to avoid making contact with the head, that is a penalty.

The first two Qld tries were on the back of shit penalties. One that was a blatant milk and the other from the Bird penalty. NSW definitely got the worst of the refs poor performance but it was across the board. They can't be there in game 2 that's for sure.

As a Tigers fan I must admit though that I'm most bitter at the fact that Farah was robbed of an Origin moment. If that was ruled a no try Farah would have been hailed a hero. He was also robbed of accolades when he charged down a kick from Cameron Smith that allowed us to get the ball back in good field position because Carney immediately lost the ball. Farah was awesome. Farah. Farah.

 

[bileduct]

What pisses me off about the Inglis ruling is that every week you see similar incidents in the field of play where a defender comes in contact with the ball and it is dislodged and they call it a "loose carry, knock on".

 

[Red Bear]

What a lovely person you are.

lol, considering some of the stuff you have posted on here.

Anyone else notice Cooper Cronk taking out NSW player chasing the kick in ~70th minute? Clearly changed direction, put a shoulder to him, allowed his player a clear run at the ball (caught it from the ingoal and tapped at 20, possibly Tate). Looked a penalty any day of the week.

Sin binning was fair enough, the other decisions definately went Qld's way and it was a pretty poor standard of refereeing. On to game II though, hopefully similar starting side, alter the bench a bit

 

[Jobdog]

Simply cannot believe Harrigan has just come out and said there was nothing wrong with the Inglis try.

 

[Hutty1986]

Simply cannot believe Harrigan has just come out and said there was nothing wrong with the Inglis try.

JD, he was always, always going to back his ref, no matter how ridiculous the decision was

 

[Someone]

losing to QLD will be a massive setback for NSW.

I dont think we will win another game until 2014...heres hoping we have two sydney games...

 

[BunniesMan]

JD, he was always, always going to back his ref, no matter how ridiculous the decision was

He also said the Bird tackle should have been play on and that Matt Scott should have been binned as well for starting the brawl. So to say he's blindly backing his refs is wrong.

I understand I'm in the minority but I still don't see what the fuss is. Looking at the replay today has only made me more confident.

Farah clearly made a play at the ball. If it wasn't for his foot GI never would have lost the ball. End of story.

An argument could even be made for penalty try because going at the ball feet first like he did has been banned. Try at least, potentially a penalty try.

The refs made mistakes last night, including binning Jennings but not Scott, either both should have gone or neither. The Bird penalty was a disgrace too.

The GI try was not one of them.

 

[Jobdog]

:lol: You're seriously contemplating it would have been ok if it was a penalty try? For that? :lol:

 

[BunniesMan]

:lol: You're seriously contemplating it would have been ok if it was a penalty try? For that? :lol:

No. If it was upto me it would have been a simple try like the video ref decided. But I'd have understood if it was awarded an 8 point try because of the new rules regarding going at the ball with your feet in a situation like that. I don't like the rule because it is only natural to extend a limb under a ball to stop a try.

I don't like those rules, I don't think they should exist, but while they do exist a case could be made for an 8 point try there.

But IMO what should have been decided and what was decided was Farah played at it, the ball only came loose because of Farah, as a result of Farah the ball rebounded forward off GIs arms without him playing at it, play on, he scores.

 

[Ozzy]

No. If it was upto me it would have been a simple try like the video ref decided. But I'd have understood if it was awarded an 8 point try because of the new rules regarding going at the ball with your feet in a situation like that. I don't like the rule because it is only natural to extend a limb under a ball to stop a try.

I don't like those rules, I don't think they should exist, but while they do exist a case could be made for an 8 point try there.

But IMO what should have been decided and what was decided was Farah played at it, the ball only came loose because of Farah, as a result of Farah the ball rebounded forward off GIs arms without him playing at it, play on, he scores.

You don't have to play at it to knock it on. How many times have you seen a ball go off a player and defender to be called double knock on?

 

[Hutty1986]

They've got BM's backing.. that's pretty telling, isn't it?

 

[Masoe_eats_babies]

Here is what neutral English fans are saying:

http://forums.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=528313&tsmp=1337779478

 

[BunniesMan]

You don't have to play at it to knock it on. How many times have you seen a ball go off a player and defender to be called double knock on?

Yes but in those situations the ballplayer usually makes another go at the ball and messes it up.

It was kicked out of his hands and into his arms.

What about in open play when a player kicks a grubber, it hits a defenders leg without the defender trying to make that happen and it goes out, you'd want the attacking team to get the ball again?

Bill Harrigan, the best ref of the modern era, has now had 18 hours to think about it and he agrees with me. That's not a knock on by Inglis.

 

[kia ora storm]

None of them threw punches. :crazy:

Blues threw punches, didn't hurt QLD so they laughed it off. Seriously Pearce snots Thaiday right in the kisser and he just gives him a bemused look, kind of like if your little sister punched you. (I understand that this might confuse most welshmen since they would probably beat their little sister if she hit them)

Was Thaiday third man in as usual ??...never squares up in a fight one bit..

 

[Karl]

You don't have to play at it to knock it on. How many times have you seen a ball go off a player and defender to be called double knock on?

Actually, you do. A knock on requires a player to play at the ball. Read the rules. Section 2 - glossary. It defines what a Knock-on is.

 

[Bananabender]

What pisses me off about the Inglis ruling is that every week you see similar incidents in the field of play where a defender comes in contact with the ball and it is dislodged and they call it a "loose carry, knock on".

Well said...couldnt agree more. Thing is that on the morning news they said that Harrigan said it was the wrong ref's decision and now on Fox Sports he's been on live and supported all the crap referring decisions.

The game needs to listen to the decisions of the people and not what botox Harrigan has to say... who cares? I'm sure the general paying public dont want to see these crappy origin rules week in - week out. If Bill Harrigan supports the refs decisions similiar to these ones last night, how long will he be the Referee's Boss for? Not long. If it happened every week the public wouldnt cop that crap every week.

 

[Tommax25]

The difference is that he ran into a fight when it was about 7 on 3 against he team, not turning a 1 on 1 into a 5-1 fight. Plus it's origin.

Manly fans need to build a bridge, because dredging up and rehashing instances when they have been "wronged" is getting old.

Asking for consistency is getting old? Then why bother with a video ref anymore? Just have a kid in the box flip a coin and hit try or no try whenever the ref sends it upstairs. To hell with consistency, right? :roll: