Bernard Sutton admits Roosters dudded thrice during Grand Final - according to Weidler

[Joeboy]

The fact we got the ball off the scrum feed after it hit the trainer was 100% according to the rules, it would've been a bigger travesty had the refs decided to ignore the rules and award the feed to Canberra. The argument Whitehead would've scored is null and void as they would've checked the late contact on Keary from Soliola. Both teams had calls for and against them, as is the same in any game of professional sport and all sport for that matter. The better team definitely won and anyone who claims we didn't deserve it is jealous and has bias clouding their judgement

this is something I haven’t heard clarified. Isn’t a charge down, being an attacking play, mean that the raiders were the attacking team before it hit the trainer and hence, they should get the feed. If a charge down is not a knock on but it has touched the raiders player in an attacking movement, then the refs still got it wrong?

 

[Springs09]

this is something I haven’t heard clarified. Isn’t a charge down, being an attacking play, mean that the raiders were the attacking team before it hit the trainer and hence, they should get the feed. If a charge down is not a knock on but it has touched the raiders player in an attacking movement, then the refs still got it wrong?

The attacking team refers to which half the play is in, not who has the ball. If play is in Raiders half then Roosters are the attacking team, even if they are currently tackling.

 

[Raidersteve78!]

Set of 6 in the red zone had been the Raiders strength all year? Didn't we score that set, from a set of 6 in the red zone?

The season stats show that the red zone defence was the strength of the Raiders this season with an average of 18 tackles in the redzone before conceding a try. On top of that the Roosters were sixth in the comp for scoring from within the redzone.

Based solely on the season stats it was a stretch to try and claim they got dudded because they didn't receive a penalty which would have put them in the redzone or kicking for goal. In fact the scrum feed off the obscure rule probably would have been the favourable outcome for Roosters rather than the penalty they claim should have got.

The Raiders probably would have been better mentally prepared for copping a soft penalty than they would have an unusual event where it hits the Roosters trainer yet the rules have the Roosters getting a scrum feed (surely even Roosters fans can see the problem with that rule as it is, putting aside the grand final and just considering the logic and fairness of the rule in its current form which was written well before the time when trainers were camped on the field). The surprise of not getting the feed after doing the hard work to get the charge down in the first place probably would have thrown them a little and probably affected their focus a little in that set of six (not that it should have but given the stakes of the game and the emotion of the 25 year wait it is surely understandable).

 

[TheDalek079]

Let it go Steve. The gf was a month ago. Time to move on

 

[Raidersteve78!]

Let it go Steve. The gf was a month ago. Time to move on

I totally agree, I had let it go 3 weeks ago and then this bs article came out and it all came back again.

 

[Lambretta]

The season stats show that the red zone defence was the strength of the Raiders this season with an average of 18 tackles in the redzone before conceding a try. On top of that the Roosters were sixth in the comp for scoring from within the redzone.

Based solely on the season stats it was a stretch to try and claim they got dudded because they didn't receive a penalty which would have put them in the redzone or kicking for goal. In fact the scrum feed off the obscure rule probably would have been the favourable outcome for Roosters rather than the penalty they claim should have got.

The Raiders probably would have been better mentally prepared for copping a soft penalty than they would have an unusual event where it hits the Roosters trainer yet the rules have the Roosters getting a scrum feed (surely even Roosters fans can see the problem with that rule as it is, putting aside the grand final and just considering the logic and fairness of the rule in its current form which was written well before the time when trainers were camped on the field). The surprise of not getting the feed after doing the hard work to get the charge down in the first place probably would have thrown them a little and probably affected their focus a little in that set of six (not that it should have but given the stakes of the game and the emotion of the 25 year wait it is surely understandable).

The rule itself is fine, provided the trainers aren't camped on the field

It started with Alfie Langer doing it and because no one told him to piss off, we've gotten ourselves here.

If the play is happening, the trainers need to stay off. No other changes are needed

 

[nick87]

The rule itself is fine, provided the trainers aren't camped on the field

It started with Alfie Langer doing it and because no one told him to piss off, we've gotten ourselves here.

If the play is happening, the trainers need to stay off. No other changes are needed

Spot on. If the code is hell bent on keeping trainers on the field this much then the rule does need to change to appropriately punish the offending team

But it would be far better to keep the rule as it is, and just put far greater restrictions on when a trainer can be on the field. Unless there is an injured player or it's a deadball, they shouldnt be on the field. Problem solved.

 

[Raidersteve78!]

Spot on. If the code is hell bent on keeping trainers on the field this much then the rule does need to change to appropriately punish the offending team

But it would be far better to keep the rule as it is, and just put far greater restrictions on when a trainer can be on the field. Unless there is an injured player or it's a deadball, they shouldnt be on the field. Problem solved.

It must be just me but I just can't see a way in which it can be right for a team to get the scrum feed after having their kick charged down only for it to hit their own trainer. (I know that is the rule but my argument is with the rule and it needing a slight tweak)

Surely a minor tweak to the rule in terms of the territory and attacking team component would help after all a team shouldn't be rewarded for their trainer being hit with the ball.

With the current rule what is stopping a team who could only just get over the half way line deliberately kicking it into the ref to get a repeat set. Or worse still whats stopping them taking the absolute piss by turning around to kick it into their own trainer. With the current rule the ref would have no choice but to pack a scrum a give them another set ( I know this won't happen but the rules do allow for both situation).

 

[Captain Apollo]

It must be just me but I just can't see a way in which it can be right for a team to get the scrum feed after having their kick charged down only for it to hit their own trainer. (I know that is the rule but my argument is with the rule and it needing a slight tweak)

Surely a minor tweak to the rule in terms of the territory and attacking team component would help after all a team shouldn't be rewarded for their trainer being hit with the ball.

With the current rule what is stopping a team who could only just get over the half way line deliberately kicking it into the ref to get a repeat set. Or worse still whats stopping them taking the absolute piss by turning around to kick it into their own trainer. With the current rule the ref would have no choice but to pack a scrum a give them another set ( I know this won't happen but the rules do allow for both situation).

Under your scenario, the trainer would be likely to be in the team's own half, so kicking it into the trainer would not get them the loose and feed in the tackle as they would not be the attacking team as the contact occurred inside their own half.

As to kicking it deliberately into the referee, good luck with attempting that - I'm sure the team without the ball will just stand back and allow the kicker the time necessary to line up a perfect kick and give it just the right power to hit the referee

 

[firechild]

Under your scenario, the trainer would be likely to be in the team's own half, so kicking it into the trainer would not get them the loose and feed in the tackle as they would not be the attacking team as the contact occurred inside their own half.

As to kicking it deliberately into the referee, good luck with attempting that - I'm sure the team without the ball will just stand back and allow the kicker the time necessary to line up a perfect kick and give it just the right power to hit the referee

Josh Reynolds managed it when he was at the Bulldogs. I don't know that a lot of players know the rule, or at least didn't at the time.

 

[Raidersteve78!]

Under your scenario, the trainer would be likely to be in the team's own half, so kicking it into the trainer would not get them the loose and feed in the tackle as they would not be the attacking team as the contact occurred inside their own half.

As to kicking it deliberately into the referee, good luck with attempting that - I'm sure the team without the ball will just stand back and allow the kicker the time necessary to line up a perfect kick and give it just the right power to hit the referee

From my memory of the grand final( I could be wrong) but wasn't the trainer hit on the Roosters side of half way? The scrum took place where the ball was kicked from not where it hit the trainer because it was kicked while the Roosters were the territorial attacking team which is why I came up with that hypocritical.

As for kicking it at the ref couldn't they just kick it into the pocket ref who would be fairly close to the kicker anyway and this would take the opposition team put of the equation.

I know it is a stupid hypocritical that wouldn't happen in the game but doesn't change the fact that it could be abused and hense the reason for a few tweaks to the rule.

It would only take one incident of this nature to force the hand of the nrl to change the rules as they did when the dummy half used to deliberately throw it into the man on the ground. Why not tweak the rule now so it can't be exploited.

 

[Captain Apollo]

From my memory of the grand final( I could be wrong) but wasn't the trainer hit on the Roosters side of half way? The scrum took place where the ball was kicked from not where it hit the trainer because it was kicked while the Roosters were the territorial attacking team which is why I came up with that hypocritical.

Nope he was back between halfway and the Raiders 40 metre line as you can see from this footage -

As for kicking it at the ref couldn't they just kick it into the pocket ref who would be fairly close to the kicker anyway and this would take the opposition team put of the equation.

I know it is a stupid hypocritical that wouldn't happen in the game but doesn't change the fact that it could be abused and hense the reason for a few tweaks to the rule.

It would only take one incident of this nature to force the hand of the nrl to change the rules as they did when the dummy half used to deliberately throw it into the man on the ground. Why not tweak the rule now so it can't be exploited.

It has happened what twice in how many years? Quite frankly I do think some of the carry on about it has been an over reaction (and yes, if it had gone against my team I would have said the same thing).

 

[Raidersteve78!]

Nope he was back between halfway and the Raiders 40 metre line as you can see from this footage - Corrected my memory was out a bit. I still think the trainer issue should be addressed as it shouldn't advantage the team of said trainer but happy to let it go at least until the Roosters want to bitch about how hard done by they were again.


It has happened what twice in how many years? Quite frankly I do think some of the carry on about it has been an over reaction (and yes, if it had gone against my team I would have said the same thing).

 

[nick87]

The only issue i would have with the current rule, if trainers were restricted, is who is deemed on "attack" is based on a time way back when the game doesnt resemble what it is today, and field position was more important than possession. The rule was based around the game being more like Rugby.

So a tweak should be made, but the rule about a scrum going to the attacking team is right... just the attacking team should be based on possession... which btw wouldnt have changed this ruling, since possession for the Raiders was never established, but THAT specific issue would be resolved by getting trainers off the park

A team with possesion on their own 40, is demend the defensive team under the current rules. That's just not RL in 2019.

 

[MugaB]

Sydney Rorters just fudging the figures, handing out those paperbags, from under that SombreroView attachment 33993

Oh forgot to add in free cars courtesy of uncle Nick,

https://coupler.foxsports.com.au/ap...s/news-story/8254b642c800aaf0a42aa6dc95a5c391

 

[gerg]

Oh forgot to add in free cars courtesy of uncle Nick,

https://coupler.foxsports.com.au/ap...s/news-story/8254b642c800aaf0a42aa6dc95a5c391

Honourable and principles are the third and fourth words that spring to mind when I think of the Roosters - golf and wager are one and two.

 

[carcharias]

Can this one get to 50 pages too?

 

[TheFrog]

The attacking team refers to which half the play is in, not who has the ball. If play is in Raiders half then Roosters are the attacking team, even if they are currently tackling.

This is a very odd rule, it must be said. Especially when you've got a trainer getting in the road and his team gets the advantage.

 

[carcharias]

This is a very odd rule, it must be said. Especially when you've got a trainer getting in the road and his team gets the advantage.

the trainer got in the way?

this is such bullshit.
( nothing personal to you btw)

it was just bad luck it hit him.
He spent no more time and in no different position on the field than any other trainer for any team

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Move on guys
Or

We will

Be subjected

To Carch's

Irrelevant
Bullshit