I have had enough......

[Baron Vo Mandor]

of the poor performances of referees costing us games week after week after week. Tonight was borderline cheating it was that blatant.

9-3 penalty count against us yet storm lying (or should I say wrestling) over the tackled player all night. Offside pretty much all game. Then.....wait for it this is the funniest one yet we get penalised for shielding a player catching the ball. f**k me I see that every week and no penalties.

And then they give a try when the winger clearly touches the ball with his hand and it goes forward.

Dont get me wrong we are playing crap but the refereeing in this comp is a joke

Suck it up Princess we had 9-2 against us and nearly won it.

 

[Parra Guru]

lol Morris was almost over the red line when he threw that pass back in.

I had Gasnier on for FTS so I couldn't care less tbh lol

 

[Hutty1986]

lol, Roosterphin

 

[Doug2234]

The touchie didn't raise his flag because Morris was in.

Clear as day he was in..

 

[POPEYE]

Buying a coach that can do the job for 80 minutes would overcome a lot of the Rooster's problems. Bit late for the whiteboard at half time in a game.

 

[CMUX]

Your team is abysmal. Even the refs can't help the Roosters. Smith 2nd year syndrome again

Yeah but it wouldn’t hurt them to try and help us once in a while!!!

when they had their chance to get back into the game, JWH thought he'd try to headbutt someone and forgot to play the ball, and then FPN thought he should whack someone around the head .. hopeless.

That was a rubbish penalty. Purely a square up for the penalty against Blair (which I agree shouldn’t have been a penalty)

I thought the refereeing was very good apart from that ridiculous penalty given against Melbourne for a "high shot" where he fell into it by a long way.

Yet you have no problem with the penalty against JWH for an identical incident 2 minutes later.

I agree we can’t blame the refs. The team is to ill-disciplined and I have no problem with the vast majority of penalties that go against us. However, as is well known, teams seem to magically become more disciplined when they play us and we don’t receive penalties.

 

[Tommy Smith]

I think it goes without saying that the refs have a vendetta against us. And we are also the only team in rugby league history to be penalised for "blocking" whe everyone does it.

But f**k me it doesnt help when he we have meatheads like Warea-Hargreaves and Frank-Paul in the team. Absolutely f**king clowns they are who never learn. And they're probably the reaosn that the refs unfairly target us.

It also doesn't help that we can't hold onto the ball to save our lives. Or that we constantly get driven into touch on the first tackle by playing like 'tards.

We're our own worst enemy as much as the refs are. Moreso truth be told.

 

[redvscotty]

To be fair on the shithouse Rorters, I thought the Dragons should have been pinged just about everytime the ball was kicked to Simmonds with Hornby and his blocking skillz.

I think it just so happened that Simmonds ended up knocking on or getting taken over the line haha.

 

[seaeagle sam]

i think it goes without saying that the refs have a vendetta against us.

ffs

 

[age.s]

I love that picture because it's a prime example of everything that's wrong with most criticism of the officials. The touch judge is clearly unsighted. The foot on the line is hidden by the tackler's torso and the foot over the line is obscured by the tackler's hip and thigh. If there was another touch judge ahead of the play (ie. with the view that the camera has) then someone would have been sighted and able to make a better call. But there isn't another official, so what's the touch judge to do - call him out on suspicion?

Remember we do have a benefit of the doubt concept in this game. I was under the impression it is supposed to go to the attacking team by territory. Hence why tries are awarded instead of denied when there is some doubt. So if the touch judge is unsighted and doesn't actually see the feet on or over the line and the attacker is in the opponent's half then surely the right call is benefit of the doubt, play on. Doesn't that make the above situation exactly the right call?

Sure, it's rough on the defender but with only four pairs of eyes on the field and the video ref banned from intervening (mostly because of the same whinging from fans), of course there will still be these situations where officials are unsighted and have to make a call purely on benefit of the doubt. This is probably one of the situations that the suggested introduction of four touch judges is intended to address.

http://www.theage.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/double-touch-20091123-iwyy.html

I agree that an extra touchie would improve the decision making in situations like that, but even considering the touchie couldn't see Morris' feet he can see to his thigh ffs. There is no conceivable way that Morris' legs could bend from the thigh down in such a way for his feet to remain in play. The correct call in that situation was clearly benefit of the doubt to the defending team because it was orders of magnitude more likely that his foot was out of play.

I mean there's a Dragons fan in the crowd 100 meters away with his hands on his head. He clearly had a better view than the touchie.

 

[Big Pete]

Tommy - I think you were only being melodramatic but I remember vividly the Dragons and Cowboys were penalised for blocking Folau last year.

 

[Gippsy]

We all know the Roosters are crap, and I will never have any sympathy for them, ever. But I'll admit that when the Storm are at home they get dealt with very, very favourably by the refs. I'll even go as far as to say they are reffed differently when they are at home compared to when they play away. Just an observation.

 

[Penrose Warrior]

We all know the Roosters are crap, and I will never have any sympathy for them, ever. But I'll admit that when the Storm are at home they get dealt with very, very favourably by the refs. I'll even go as far as to say they are reffed differently when they are at home compared to when they play away. Just an observation.

I dont think this is a revelation we've come across just now, for any professional team in any sport.

The better your stadium is, and the more people that cram into it and make noise, the more influence you're going to have over refs. Simple human nature.

 

[Byron Knight]

I dont think this is a revelation we've come across just now, for any professional team in any sport.

The better your stadium is, and the more people that cram into it and make noise, the more influence you're going to have over refs. Simple human nature.

Absolutely. Not trying to sound bitter but look at the Tigers - Knights game at Leichardt a couple of weeks ago. We got absolutely smashed in the penalty count (about 9-2). You can't tell me that the crowd had no influence on a few of those? And fair play to them too. Such a lift for the home team, it's such an advantage to get crowds in for that reason alone.

 

[Quidgybo]

I agree that an extra touchie would improve the decision making in situations like that, but even considering the touchie couldn't see Morris' feet he can see to his thigh ffs. There is no conceivable way that Morris' legs could bend from the thigh down in such a way for his feet to remain in play. The correct call in that situation was clearly benefit of the doubt to the defending team because it was orders of magnitude more likely that his foot was out of play.

Or in the air. That's the point. Until the touch judge can actually see the foot on the ground he can't go making the call on suspicion. He's just as likely to end up guessing wrong and find himself in reserve grade next week. It's a no win situation. When genuinely unsighted the only thing he has to fall back on is the benefit of the doubt rule. And if, as I've suggested above, that goes to the attacking side by territory then the only ruling left open in this case is play on until either he or another official actually sees something that leaves them in no doubt that the attack should be stopped. If instead the defense was the attacking team by territory then the correct call when unsighted in the same situation would be out, scrum. Hopefully one of our qualified referees will step in here and correct me if I'm getting this wrong.

Leigh

 

[BDGS]

of the poor performances of referees costing us games week after week after week. Tonight was borderline cheating it was that blatant.

I thought this was pretty funny.

bor·der·line: uncertain; indeterminate; debatable: not an alcoholic, but a borderline case.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/borderline

bla·tant: brazenly obvious; flagrant: a blatant error in simple addition; a blatant lie.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blatant

 

[Gippsy]

I dont think this is a revelation we've come across just now, for any professional team in any sport.

The better your stadium is, and the more people that cram into it and make noise, the more influence you're going to have over refs. Simple human nature.

It's not as if the Storm get massive crowds though. In their case its moreso that no oppositon crowds are there, but they are certainly given more leeway in slowing down the play the balls, wrestling, getting off the line too early, etc etc etc. Often the opposition teams are not given a chance to even get into the game.

I understand the concept of the crowd influencing the refs decision. But in a professional sport you should still expect them to ref what's in front of them, not cruel one teams chances by effectively only reffing one team.

 

[age.s]

Or in the air. That's the point. Until the touch judge can actually see the foot on the ground he can't go making the call on suspicion. He's just as likely to end up guessing wrong and find himself in reserve grade next week. It's a no win situation. When genuinely unsighted the only thing he has to fall back on is the benefit of the doubt rule. And if, as I've suggested above, that goes to the attacking side by territory then the only ruling left open in this case is play on until either he or another official actually sees something that leaves them in no doubt that the attack should be stopped. If instead the defense was the attacking team by territory then the correct call when unsighted in the same situation would be out, scrum. Hopefully one of our qualified referees will step in here and correct me if I'm getting this wrong.

Leigh

I'm not a qualified referee, so I might be getting this wrong too, but my understanding is that there needs to be a reasonable level of doubt in the mind of the official. That doesn't mean the .0001% chance that Morris somehow defied gravity and pulled off one of the great Rugby League plays by contorting his legs into a direction they are physically unable to bend in takes precedent over the 99.9999% chance that his knees bent correctly, and his foot went out of play. I'm conveniently ignoring the feet in the air argument, because I don't see how Morris could have kept his feet in the air either when his whole body was being dragged down in that way. I don't think the absence of reasonable doubt requires that you see the foot hit the chalk in this instance.

I just think the touchie got it wrong on that occassion. It was a massive call in a massive game that happened in a split second and he f**ked up. I'm not a rooster fan so it's one of those things I'm a bit philosophical about.

 

[aussie7798]

I'm not a qualified referee, so I might be getting this wrong too, but my understanding is that there needs to be a reasonable level of doubt in the mind of the official. That doesn't mean the .0001% chance that Morris somehow defied gravity and pulled off one of the great Rugby League plays by contorting his legs into a direction they are physically unable to bend in takes precedent over the 99.9999% chance that his knees bent correctly, and his foot went out of play. I'm conveniently ignoring the feet in the air argument, because I don't see how Morris could have kept his feet in the air either when his whole body was being dragged down in that way. I don't think the absence of reasonable doubt requires that you see the foot hit the chalk in this instance.

I just think the touchie got it wrong on that occassion. It was a massive call in a massive game that happened in a split second and he f**ked up. I'm not a rooster fan so it's one of those things I'm a bit philosophical about.

He was clearly out and i am a dragons fan but the roosters got a try for soward stripping the ball with his thigh and that got looked at by the video ref ffs not in general play

 

[Lambretta]

Apparently Wanga is the correct pronounciation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYEMNab00bw

Call me Wanga