'13 | R23 | Sat | Raiders 16-28 Bulldogs | Canberra

[Raider_69]

Funny when even Greg Alexander is saying the Raiders were hard done by

 

[Walt Flanigan]

Cheers Reynolds

 

[Hutty1986]

BS call. Should have been a Dogs penalty then

 

[Horrie Is God]

When did Sam Williams ditch the headgear??..

 

[Walt Flanigan]

Funny when even Greg Alexander is saying the Raiders were hard done by

Yeah I'm recording that and making it my ringtone.

 

[Grapple]

Message for the second half: Keep going right Canterbury and stop lying in the ruck.

 

[Raider_69]

BS call. Should have been a Dogs penalty then

obvious troll is obvious

 

[Aragorn]

 

[Apey]

The angle that showed he dropped it was the one which Warren Smith was blurry. No it wasn't. His hand came off behind the ball.

Pretty clear no-try when that angle was shown especially. Won't stop the tears from the usual suspects (and half the tards aren't even Raiders supporters).

 

[Dogs Of War]

Dogs aren't playing great, but taking their opportunities. Raiders seem very one dimensional, not sure if they have the cattle to play it a bit more expansive. Maybe getting Milford somehow more involved might be a solution, but it doesn't help with the Wighton injury already affecting their backline.

Be interesting anyhow to see how the Dogs carry themselves in the second half, will they up the tempo, or just believe the game is won and play very conservatively.

 

[Mig2006]

Does McCrone purposely try to avoid giving the ball to Papalii? Two runs by him in that half is clearly not enough!!

 

[Timmah]

We're taking advantages of our opportunities which we didn't do last week. Canberra aren't.

As for the Williams no try - I was surprised as I didn't think the dropping evidence was strong enough to overturn the on-field call, but I can see where it came from. Tough call on the Raiders, but it's not Canterbury's fault they couldn't defend that set...

 

[Iafeta]

Pretty clear no-try when that angle was shown especially. Won't stop the tears from the usual suspects (and half the tards aren't even Raiders supporters).

That's how I saw it (the first part). It didn't even look close to being a try. If I only saw the other angles I'd back the on field referee's call. But that angle was clear cut IMO. The separation between hand and ball was quite substantial.

 

[Walt Flanigan]

Earl you f*cking dunce

 

[Apey]

That's how I saw it (the first part). It didn't even look close to being a try. If I only saw the other angles I'd back the on field referee's call. But that angle was clear cut IMO. The separation between hand and ball was quite substantial.

Pretty funny how the commentators (do people actually watch the game or just listen to them whinge?) wrote that angle off immediately despite it not being that blurry at all. If that angle was too blurry to base a conclusion off then you're probably the one who has eyesight problems.

 

[ceagle]

The refs again....

 

[user_nat]

How do they miss that offside.

 

[Raider_69]

lol

 

[Iafeta]

That was a very poor call in terms of Ennis not being offside. That said, Canterbury had no advantage from Earl's error so it would have been their ball anyhow.

 

[ek999]

Earl kicked it not Hodko so he was onside