Canberra/Broncos reffing SHOCKER!

[JW]

LOL

As always, packing as much punch as a Preston Campbell shoulder charge.

 

[Ghoulies]

and no.. i'll think i'll stay around to harass you arrogant pricks

Harassment? Is that what this is meant to be? :lol:

Trust me mate, the only thing you're accomplishing here is putting us into hysterics with some of the lamest trolling imaginable.

 

[Stewie Griffin]

But we still affect you that much that you dislike the game because of us....and you post on an NRL forum.
Hmmmmmmmm.

go on what else can you come up with?... go back to wacking off over your bronco's magazine... or better still go give your sister a bit... you like all that inter-family interaction dont you?.. thats why the club you support is called the family club

That just showed how mature you are. If you went to get personal on the internet, stay away from it.

 

[Paullyboy]

Saab/Realredhillboy:

I think I speak for everyone when I say - Shut the freak up and piss off to your own thread in some corner of the forums where we dont have to put up with your pathetic attempts at abusing each other. It's deadset like watching primary schoolgirls going at it.

The simple fact is that everyone that isn't a biased Broncos fan has agreed that the decisions of the video referee changed the result of the Raiders/Broncos game. The issue now is hoping that it doesnt affect someone who is in the hunt for the finals - unless its the Broncos and some karma would be nice.

 

[icewind]

as opposed to biased raiders supporters? ;-)

 

[skeepe]

as opposed to biased raiders supporters? ;-)

Are Greg Alexander, Wayne Pearce or Gary Freeman all biased Raiders supporters? They all believed Carney scored. They also all believed that the decision completely changed the course of the game.

The ONLY people defending the decisions are Broncos supporters. EVERYONE ELSE disagrees with them.

 

[JW]

Fine chumps, back on topic then:

By the way, i'm still waiting to see some reasoning to this theory ie. why the NRL is apparently out to dud the Raiders. Serious question, despite how hard it is to take such a claim seriously.

?

 

[salivor]

Are Greg Alexander, Wayne Pearce or Gary Freeman all biased Raiders supporters? They all believed Carney scored. They also all believed that the decision completely changed the course of the game.

The ONLY people defending the decisions are Broncos supporters. EVERYONE ELSE disagrees with them.

Do those 3 possess a brain cell between them?

 

[Meanie]

Saab/Realredhillboy:

The simple fact is that everyone that isn't a biased Broncos fan has agreed that the decisions of the video referee changed the result of the Raiders/Broncos game. .

That was because instead of steeling themselves after that decision they collapsed in a laughable heap. No heart whatsover, just collapsed in a bumbling mess. Origin 3 2006 and Origin 1 2007, watch them Raiders fans.

 

[nqboy]

Both decisions were absolutely correct IMO. Carney had a bit each way on the tackle and the knockdown and was rightly pulled back for it. The Michaels try looked for all the world like a no-try at normal speed but the slo-mo replay showed clearly that he had grounded it.

Neil Henry would be better occupied working on his team's woeful completion rate. I always reckon you've got no right to bag the ref if you were even worse.

 

[Mr Saab]

The "didnt play at the ball whilst making a tackle" interpretation should be scrapped altogether.
Problem solved.

 

[skeepe]

Both decisions were absolutely correct IMO. Carney had a bit each way on the tackle and the knockdown and was rightly pulled back for it.

bullsh*t. He was trying to make a tackle. How the f**k else do you make a tackle? With your arms by your sides?

The Michaels try looked for all the world like a no-try at normal speed but the slo-mo replay showed clearly that he had grounded it.

bullsh*t. Even the video ref, despite getting it wrong, didn't think it was clear, that's why he gave BOTD. The correct decision, as it has been ruled in every other single incident like that each year (if consistency is what we're after, as has been mentioned several times in this thread) is to rule a "No Try". For reference, see Alan Tongue vs Newcastle in Newcastle, and Lincoln Withers vs St George in Canberra.

Neil Henry would be better occupied working on his team's woeful completion rate. I always reckon you've got no right to bag the ref if you were even worse.

Yet despite the woeful completion rate, the team would have won the game if it were not for the blatantly wrong decisions. I think a team that was denied the opportunity of winning a match has every right to blast a referee. Then again, you wouldn't know what it's like, with the Cowboys having several blatantly wrong decisions go their way this year.

 

[nqboy]

You're welcome to your opinion Skeepe, even if it is wrong. Except for your obvious bias, I'm mystified how you could come to the conclusions you have on those two decisions.

 

[JW]

Exactly.

I find it amazing that some are suggesting that, with the best part of half an hour to go, a would-be 13 point lead to Canberra would have secured certain victory.

Comedy gold, and it's just so Canberra.

 

[Meanie]

Raiders fans do like to play devil's advocate don't they? I remember 2 years ago with the Frawley no try, which if it'd been awarded would've locked the score up at 24 leaving Schifcofske with a difficult side line conversion to win it, yet Raiders fans still whinged on about how they were robbed of CERTAIN VICTORY. Who's too say if Carney is awarded that try that Brisbane don't bounce back and still win anyway?

 

[JW]

Impossible, Meanie. 30 minutes is just too long in football to score 13 points...

 

[salivor]

It's simple maths you see, Skeep thinks the Broncos were given 2 incorrect tries so he takes 12 points off the Brisbane scoreline. So everything else would've happened exactly as it did if those 2 tries were denied. I think he also forgets in his calculations that Brisbane gave away a very soft try to the Raiders at the end there with the match already rapped up, I'm sure they would've shown a lot more committment on defence if they were holding on to just a 5 point lead at that point. But hey what's logic needed for when you're a Raiders fan?

 

[salivor]

Raiders fans do like to play devil's advocate don't they? I remember 2 years ago with the Frawley no try, which if it'd been awarded would've locked the score up at 24 leaving Schifcofske with a difficult side line conversion to win it, yet Raiders fans still whinged on about how they were robbed of CERTAIN VICTORY. Who's too say if Carney is awarded that try that Brisbane don't bounce back and still win anyway?

It's actually worse, Brisbane won that game by 6 points. The Frawley try would've taken the score to 24-22 with Schifcofske needing to convert from the sideline just to tie the game and take it into golden point. So Raiders fans kicked up a Storm about being denied the opportunity to be kicked around in golden point. It seems to be a pre-requisite to being a Raiders fan to have a we was robbed attitude.

 

[Raider_69]

only when it actually happens mate
that frawley incident was a try for all the money in the world. Particually if that Michaels try is the bench mark, then we can also add Alan Tongue's try early this year, along with a Lincoln Withers one


and 30 minutes is plenty of time in footy
at 19-6, brisbane may have won the game, or maybe canberra go on to put another 20 on them... we'll never know now, thanks to 2 very ordinary video ref decisions.

 

[Iafeta]

Are Greg Alexander, Wayne Pearce or Gary Freeman all biased Raiders supporters? They all believed Carney scored. They also all believed that the decision completely changed the course of the game.

The ONLY people defending the decisions are Broncos supporters. EVERYONE ELSE disagrees with them.

:lol: :lol: :lol: I must be right if Gary Freeman and Wayne Pearce, the doyen of commentators, agree with me.

You know you are desperate when you are citing them as references.