Gerard Sutton demoted to Titans v Warriors clash

[insert.pause]

Not the Cows v Knights, neither of whom can make the finals? Or the game later that Friday night between two sides who also aren't in the 8?

I dunno why you think 'least watched' is relevant. They don't appoint referees based upon the crowd figures, last I checked.

It's only a demotion if he was in charge of the Roosters Dragons game. All the rest of them are like the Titans Warriors that they include one finals-bound team and one who isn't, or they feature two non-8 sides as I said above. And even if he was in charge of the Roosters Dragons game, you have to be a one hell of an imbecile, I mean work for the NRL, to think calling our match a lower-profile one is anything but unprofessional and offensive to the highest degree.

We're not whinging that he's cost us the game. We're saying it's a slap in the face to be labelled a lower-profile match when we're about to make finals for the first time in 7 years. We'll get over it. It's just pathetic how the NRL have done this - again.

Least watched, as in ratings, and yes a game between the warriors and Titans on a Sunday afternoon is not a high rating game, which makes it low profile.

 

[morningstar]

Least watched, as in ratings, and yes a game between the warriors and Titans on a Sunday afternoon is not a high rating game, which makes it low profile.

Not a high rating game in Australia....what about NZ? Will be the highest rating NRL game of the week, as usual.

Great message by the geniuses at NRL to Sky Sports NZ....thanks for giving us $18m a year for 24 ‘lower profile’ Warriors games a season, we assume you will be increasing your offer when we re-negotiate the tv rights deal?

 

[Penrose Warrior]

Least watched, as in ratings, and yes a game between the warriors and Titans on a Sunday afternoon is not a high rating game, which makes it low profile.

The point flew over your head. Least watched is irrelevant when appointing referees.

 

[insert.pause]

The point flew over your head. Least watched is irrelevant when appointing referees.

No, you missed it entirely, that is how it works, that is how the NRL view it, like it or not, that is why you are whinging about Sutton being "demonted"! A low rating game is a low profile game, the nrl don't care about warriors vs Titans as much as they do roosters vs dragons, fact! The nrl don't care that it will rate 100k on sky in nz. They care about the Australian market because that's where the majority of the scrutiny comes from and they naturally want the best refs where the most eyeballs are.

 

[Meth]

No, you missed it entirely, that is how it works, that is how the NRL view it, like it or not, that is why you are whinging about Sutton being "demonted"! A low rating game is a low profile game, the nrl don't care about warriors vs Titans as much as they do roosters vs dragons, fact! The nrl don't care that it will rate 100k on sky in nz. They care about the Australian market because that's where the majority of the scrutiny comes from and they naturally want the best refs where the most eyeballs are.

Still not the point.

 

[insert.pause]

Still not the point.

it doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not, a games profile dictates ref appointments, it's just how the NRL operate, otherwise refs would take it in turns who gets the GF & origin. It's the same reason Matt Nable doesn't get to call roosters vs dragons for foxsports. Some games will always be bigger than others, it isn't personal.

 

[Penrose Warrior]

No, you missed it entirely, that is how it works, that is how the NRL view it, like it or not, that is why you are whinging about Sutton being "demonted"! A low rating game is a low profile game, the nrl don't care about warriors vs Titans as much as they do roosters vs dragons, fact! The nrl don't care that it will rate 100k on sky in nz. They care about the Australian market because that's where the majority of the scrutiny comes from and they naturally want the best refs where the most eyeballs are.

So that means Brisbane would get the best ref most weeks. They don't, so you're incorrect.

And as Meth says you're still missing the point. No one's whinging. They're just bemoaning the tin pot organisation that can't see how sending out an email with lower profile in it isn't dumb in the extreme. It reeks of the unprofessionalism and piss poor way the NRL and ultimately Greenberg are handling the game, and refs in particular.

It won't affect our game on Sunday, just to clear that up for you. But it puts Sutton in a vulnerable position if he f**ks up again

 

[Captain Apollo]

No, you missed it entirely, that is how it works, that is how the NRL view it, like it or not, that is why you are whinging about Sutton being "demonted"! A low rating game is a low profile game, the nrl don't care about warriors vs Titans as much as they do roosters vs dragons, fact! The nrl don't care that it will rate 100k on sky in nz. They care about the Australian market because that's where the majority of the scrutiny comes from and they naturally want the best refs where the most eyeballs are.

No, that's not how they view it. They view it as lower profile as it is the 12th placed team (Titans) v the 8th placed team (Warriors). Compared to -

Broncos (6th) v Sharks (5th);
Roosters (4th) v Dragons (2nd);

it is lower profile.

 

[Timmah]

No, that's not how they view it. They view it as lower profile as it is the 12th placed team (Titans) v the 8th placed team (Warriors). Compared to -

Broncos (6th) v Sharks (5th);
Roosters (4th) v Dragons (2nd);

it is lower profile.

This is a fair point. I doubt anyone would've assigned anything but a "low profile" label to last Thursday's Bulldogs-Eels game.

 

[Anon]

I'm sure he'll be back to f*ck over whichever poor team has to play Broncos or Storm in the finals.

 

[Leber]

No, that's not how they view it. They view it as lower profile as it is the 12th placed team (Titans) v the 8th placed team (Warriors).

Not when there are 2 games this weekend, (Cowboys-Knights and Bulldogs Tigers) that include teams that are all out of the top 8.

If 'low profile' meant lower ranked teams, one of them would get him.

 

[carcharias]

All shit stirring aside here
Last week you could almost believe the prick was unsure of the rules when the TJ held the flag up for a split second.
Still not good enough though
But last night , that dude was just either making it up or straight out lying.
( Moylan penalty)
Not that that had a bearing in the result as the broncos failed to score a try in the second half anyway.

Plus to call it a demotion to another NRL game is bloody outrageous.
Time to f**k this fickhrad Greenberg off.
Go back to aerobics ya wanker.

 

[Peet]

Absolutely anyone with any eyesight watching the Bunker footage has to have seen the flag raised.
The only way anyone could have not seen it was if they were blind or actively not looking for it, making a point to not look at the touch judge, which I find hard to believe as the touch judge gave a call of knock on in the no try decision sent to the Bunker.

Not only that - but didn't they see a bunch of Canberra players pointing towards the touchy as they stood still. We all did. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

 

[Penrose Warrior]

Will Luke Patten be demoted to an even lower-profile game for deeming that tripping over a 115kg prop is 'minimal contact'?

f**k me dead. These guys just have no idea. Even former players can't read the game.

And let none of the above persuade anyone that I am sooking, because we deservedly got spanked after a truly insipid performance that had nothing to do with refereeing.

 

[insert.pause]

Will Luke Patten be demoted to an even lower-profile game for deeming that tripping over a 115kg prop is 'minimal contact'?

f**k me dead. These guys just have no idea. Even former players can't read the game.

And let none of the above persuade anyone that I am sooking, because we deservedly got spanked after a truly insipid performance that had nothing to do with refereeing.

I reckon if you looked back at every whopper made by the bunker, Luke Patten would be involved 9 times out of 10.

 

[thorson1987]

I reckon if you looked back at every whopper made by the bunker, Luke Patten would be involved 9 times out of 10.

 

[Meth]

Will Luke Patten be demoted to an even lower-profile game for deeming that tripping over a 115kg prop is 'minimal contact'?

f**k me dead. These guys just have no idea. Even former players can't read the game.

And let none of the above persuade anyone that I am sooking, because we deservedly got spanked after a truly insipid performance that had nothing to do with refereeing.

To be fair, Patten was obviously looking for a way to get around the fact that contact made with a player who was never going to prevent a try being scored was normally force his hand to rule 'no try'. It was a common sense decision expressed in a nonsensical way and is not consistent with the way that they're ruled all year. But, as I said in the match thread, if that's consistently deemed to be a try from here on it, then I am happy

 

[Meth]

Also, I now agree with the NRL- Warriors games are low profile. Too many people watching that shit is bad for the game.

 

[Penrose Warrior]

To be fair, Patten was obviously looking for a way to get around the fact that contact made with a player who was never going to prevent a try being scored was normally force his hand to rule 'no try'. It was a common sense decision expressed in a nonsensical way and is not consistent with the way that they're ruled all year. But, as I said in the match thread, if that's consistently deemed to be a try from here on it, then I am happy

They can't rule that Vuna wasn't going to be able to impact on the play? If not, then OK I guess I like the ruling because he wouldn't have.

But it makes you sit there in your armchair, wondering who the f**k these goons are who have the benefit of the same screen I have and they say things like minimal contact when Vuna was quite clearly tripped. So if Patten did as you're saying, the rules have made him look foolish again.

And Meth, my man, this loss has cut you deep. Your level of hurting goes way deeper than whatever happens with Ricky and the boys in the Canberra sheds after a loss.

 

[Meth]

They can't rule that Vuna wasn't going to be able to impact on the play? If not, then OK I guess I like the ruling because he wouldn't have.

no, that sort of scenario has been a no try all year...but common sense sees the video ref rule the way he did today. So, I don't mind the way he's ruled it, but consistency would be nice.