2019 GF | PREMIERS - Roosters 14-8 Raiders @ ANZ

[Susan Madge]

Not denying it was the correct call. But if you can find me a game where a referee has made a call then irradically changed his mind 5 seconds after said call then be my guest. Especially in the biggest game of the year

Irradically???? Time I bought a new dictionary, clearly. Irrationally?

 

[gitano]

Poor @Walt Flanigan

 

[Susan Madge]

Very few raiders fans are saying any different to jack there. The roosters fans are completely strawmanning us because they have a bizarre desire to be liked and respected

NEVER going to happen

 

[gitano]

Poor @skeepe

 

[gitano]

Poor @bileduct

 

[gitano]

Poor @Pete Cash

 

[TheFrog]

It's unfortunate that 1)
All in all - a messy finish but I refuse to cop this BS that the Raiders were robbed by an external influence when they failed so many times to capitalise

You wouldn't quite go so far as to say robbed, but disadvantaged certainly, by having to defend a new set at a time they were expecting to attack. A set which produced the winning points. A decision was made to disadvantage one side in preference to the other.

Both sides failed to capitalise to the extent it was one try apiece at the time. To try to use this as evidenced the Roosters were the better side is quite ludicrous. The Raiders had one try denied by a trainer in the way and another by a professional foul. They were the better side.

In addition, the laws of Rugby League were clearly breached by Cummins. Section 16:9 says-

The Referee judges on matters of fact and shall not subsequently alter those judgments. He may cancel any decision made if prior foul play of which he had no knowledge is reported to him by a Touch Judge.

 

[Captain Apollo]

You wouldn't quite go so far as to say robbed, but disadvantaged certainly, by having to defend a new set at a time they were expecting to attack. A set which produced the winning points. A decision was made to disadvantage one side in preference to the other.

Both sides failed to capitalise to the extent it was one try apiece at the time. To try to use this as evidenced the Roosters were the better side is quite ludicrous. The Raiders had one try denied by a trainer in the way and another by a professional foul. They were the better side.

In addition, the laws of Rugby League were clearly breached by Cummins. Section 16:9 says-

The Referee judges on matters of fact and shall not subsequently alter those judgments. He may cancel any decision made if prior foul play of which he had no knowledge is reported to him by a Touch Judge.

Thing is, there were two referees....... and the "control" referee was unsure of what happened (You can hear it in his voice in the audio). As I said up thread, the problem was he signaled too early rather than waiting a second to get the advice he was after, which the pocket referee supplied.

 

[Cockosh]

You wouldn't quite go so far as to say robbed, but disadvantaged certainly, by having to defend a new set at a time they were expecting to attack. A set which produced the winning points. A decision was made to disadvantage one side in preference to the other.

Both sides failed to capitalise to the extent it was one try apiece at the time. To try to use this as evidenced the Roosters were the better side is quite ludicrous. The Raiders had one try denied by a trainer in the way and another by a professional foul. They were the better side.

In addition, the laws of Rugby League were clearly breached by Cummins. Section 16:9 says-

The Referee judges on matters of fact and shall not subsequently alter those judgments. He may cancel any decision made if prior foul play of which he had no knowledge is reported to him by a Touch Judge.

The trainer incident is a moot point. Should’ve been a penalty to roosters. No ifs, buts or maybes. Keary nearly does a somersault from the impact. Not intentional but irrelevant. If you Argue refs shouldnt overturn decisions then the Cronk sinbin comes off the back of a bs penalty against takeiaho for stripping which they originally judged as a loose carry against raiders. The 6 again call was a farce no doubt but there were other incidents where we we equally disadvantaged. Raiders had plenty opportunities to score and didn’t. BJ should’ve passed. We scored from a set starting in our 10 m which wasnt defended. Attaching for he majority of the game doesn’t determine the best team. Defending and scoring more points does.

 

[Haffa]

The trainer incident is a moot point. Should’ve been a penalty to roosters. No ifs, buts or maybes. Keary nearly does a somersault from the impact. Not intentional but irrelevant. If you Argue refs shouldnt overturn decisions then the Cronk sinbin comes off the back of a bs penalty against takeiaho for stripping which they originally judged as a loose carry against raiders. The 6 again call was a farce no doubt but there were other incidents where we we equally disadvantaged. Raiders had plenty opportunities to score and didn’t. BJ should’ve passed. We scored from a set starting in our 10 m which wasnt defended. Attaching for he majority of the game doesn’t determine the best team. Defending and scoring more points does.

Add the Ref stopping the clock after Teddys try and following Mitchell’s conversion despite it not being in the last 5 minutes of the game.

 

[nick87]

The trainer incident is a moot point. Should’ve been a penalty to roosters. No ifs, buts or maybes. Keary nearly does a somersault from the impact. Not intentional but irrelevant. I

The actual rule book would like to have a word with you.
You're right, no ifs, buts or maybes. As per the actual rules of the game, it was not a penalty.

Again, as per the rules.
Feels like i havent been clear enough though, so i just want to make it really clear, the RULES state clearly this was not a penalty. The rule book being the thing the referees are to officiate the game on.

We did have plenty of chances, we didnt take them. The roosters did. We didnt get robbed, we got mildly disadvantaged and that kind of sucked but is also just a part of sport. The roosters deserved to win because they took their chances and we didnt.

 

[Walt Flanigan]

Add the Ref stopping the clock after Teddys try and following Mitchell’s conversion despite it not being in the last 5 minutes of the game.

The ref stops the clock 80 seconds after a try is scored regardless of what minute it is and the clock stops for 30 seconds after any conversion attempt

 

[lazza]

The ref stops the clock 80 seconds after a try is scored regardless of what minute it is and the clock stops for 30 seconds after any conversion attempt

They should add to rule changes - why not just stop the clock, why 80/30 secs? as fans we get more game time.

 

[BadnMean]

The actual rule book would like to have a word with you.
You're right, no ifs, buts or maybes. As per the actual rules of the game, it was not a penalty.

Again, as per the rules.
Feels like i havent been clear enough though, so i just want to make it really clear, the RULES state clearly this was not a penalty. The rule book being the thing the referees are to officiate the game on.

We did have plenty of chances, we didnt take them. The roosters did. We didnt get robbed, we got mildly disadvantaged and that kind of sucked but is also just a part of sport. The roosters deserved to win because they took their chances and we didnt.

Or. The Rooters got a couple of big leg ups which MAY have turned a close fought game their way.

 

[Cockosh]

The actual rule book would like to have a word with you.
You're right, no ifs, buts or maybes. As per the actual rules of the game, it was not a penalty.

Again, as per the rules.
Feels like i havent been clear enough though, so i just want to make it really clear, the RULES state clearly this was not a penalty. The rule book being the thing the referees are to officiate the game on.

We did have plenty of chances, we didnt take them. The roosters did. We didnt get robbed, we got mildly disadvantaged and that kind of sucked but is also just a part of sport. The roosters deserved to win because they took their chances and we didnt.

Penalty every single day of the week. Reality wants a word with you. 99 out of a 100 times that is called a penalty I notice you don’t acknowledge the other rule about not changing calls which they did to takeiaho. Calls went both ways. The best team won.

 

[nick87]

Penalty every single day of the week. Reality wants a word with you. 99 out of a 100 times that is called a penalty I notice you don’t acknowledge the other rule about not changing calls which they did to takeiaho. Calls went both ways. The best team won.

No. As per the rule book, it's not a penalty any day of week
I've said it before and ill ask you directly, find me one occasion where a player has been penalised for attacking the legs on a charge down attempt where they successfully charged the ball down?

It hasnt happened. Why? Because it's only a penalty if the player dives at the legs AFTER the ball has been kicked. Sia clearly dived before the ball was kicked.

The RL field is still governed by the laws of physics, and it's not humanly possible to dive at the legs after the ball is kicked and actually successfully charge the kick down.

The rule is pretty simple, if you try and charge the ball down, and you're late and hit the legs, it'll be a penalty every time. If you get the football though, thats on the kicker, not the defender. And they're not going penalise a player for successfully charging down a kick

And again, if you dont understand the fundamental difference between changing your ruling in a dead ball spot, vs in the middle of live action, then there is little i or anyone can do to help you overcome your intellectual deficiency.

And yes, as i have said any number of times, the roosters took their chances and we didnt, and they deserved their win

 

[Cockosh]

Clear cut penalty. Everyday of the the week. 99 times out of 100. Stop clutching at straws.

 

[Walt Flanigan]

Clear cut penalty. Everyday of the the week. 99 times out of 100. Stop clutching at straws.

Keep saying it mate, maybe it'll come true for you.

 

[Cockosh]

Keep saying it mate, maybe it'll come true for you.

I Don’t need it to come true my team won. It’s a shame it did hit the trainer and Canberra didn’t get to score so video ref could’ve dissallowed for attacking the players legs.

 

[Walt Flanigan]

I Don’t need it to come true my team won.

Which is why it's bizarre you feel the need to make up rules.