I see we have a new rule now

[Noname36]

Your beef then is with the match review committee and not the judiciary....

The point is that they've gotten a free ride many a time so I don't know what Rooster's fans think whinging like this and making threads about it is going achieve. They're not going to get anyone feeling sorry for them.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Says who. The penalty count was 8 - 3 in the Knights favour.

So penalties are the only indicator of a team's ability to win these days?

 

[Spot On]

That every time a player who isn't the captain harasses the ref it's an instant ten in the bin! I look forward to watching 6 on 6 next game.

Good rule. I really like.

 

[BCH]

They're not going to get anyone feeling sorry for them.

I don't expect they think that either. You feel the Roosters get a free ride, Roosters fans obviously disagree, particularly when it comes to penalty count anomalies over the last 10 - 20 years.

 

[Jason Maher]

Danish answered the question properly but I want to add a couple of things

The Roosters have had 1 "winning season" penalty count wise since 1995 and one season where we "drew"

In other words, season by season we have lost more penalty counts than we've won almost every year for twenty years. Often by some margin like 4 wins to 20 losses. No other team has suffered this over a prolonged period.

The year we won was a plus one or a plus two from memory

Over that 20 years we have had different rosters, different coaches, different rules, different tactics over that period. But amazingly the result is always the same. Is it any wonder Roosters fans believe there must be a conspiracy?


Personally I think the only thing the Roosters can do is what they did last season. Understand you're going to lose the count. Its a given that you will be refereed to a different standard than other teams. You can't control it - so why f**king worry about it? The only thing you can control is how hard you play and how much effort you put in. Last season we won games we had no right to win. Time after time after time we defended and defended and defended. Some of the decisions that gave the ball to the opposition were laughable, some were plain unlucky and some were of our own making but we just kept turning up.

This season we haven't had the same attitude. We don't appear to have the siege mentality required to get the job done when things go wrong.

If we'd applied the right attitude on Friday a bad decision would have made no difference at all. Laying our loss at the feet of the referees doesn't wash with me. We know this is going to happen. Our job is to ensure it doesn't matter.

Where'd you get the figures for this?

 

[Tommy Smith]

You could include the Dragons' 3 finals games in 2010 and they would still have conceded less than the Roosters did in the regular season. Including finals they conceded 11.81 points per game.

Over the same amount of games (27) the 2013 Roosters conceded a staggering extra 89 penalties compared to the 2010 Dragons: 224 v 135.

That's an extra 89 sets of six we had to defend. No wonder we conceded more points! Still had the most shut outs in history though.

And noname summed it up perfectly. No-one else will feel sorry for the Roosters, hence why no-one cares about the damning statistics. This is why it won't change. Other clubs and their fans would obviously love this situation where we are held to different standards by the referees.

 

[BCH]

So penalties are the only indicator of a team's ability to win these days?

Where did I say that? However, the awarding the Knights of an 8 - 3 penalty count wouldn't usually warrant an observation (sarcastic or otherwise) that the refs didn't want them to win.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

:lol: Held up to different standards - you're not important enough for that to happen. Maybe the roosters are being penalised because THEY ARE BREAKING THE RULES. Unless you can provide a complete analysis of every penalty awarded to every team over the past 10 years your statistics remain an anomaly.

 

[Tommy Smith]

Oh dear, it's not sinking in. We're referring just as much to penalties RECEIVED.

And yes, they are an anomaly. I'm glad we agree on that.

 

[POPEYE]

Let us know where on the field and at what point in the tackle count they're awarded as well

 

[AlwaysGreen]

The ref's wanted the Knights to win that game.

Original quote. This guy is implying that the refs wanted a certain result. Which is absolute bullshit and without proof.

Says who. The penalty count was 8 - 3 in the Knights favour.

So what? As I said, are penalty counts the only indicator of a team's ability to win?

Where did I say that? However, the awarding the Knights of an 8 - 3 penalty count wouldn't usually warrant an observation (sarcastic or otherwise) that the refs didn't want them to win.

Again, the original post implies that the refs wanted the knights to win. Roosters fans seem to be of the opinion that the refs are penalising their side in an attempt to see them beaten.

Anyone who believes that refs are trying to get a certain team over the line needs to readjust their tinfoil hat.

 

[Spot On]

:lol: Held up to different standards - you're not important enough for that to happen. Maybe the roosters are being penalised because THEY ARE BREAKING THE RULES. Unless you can provide a complete analysis of every penalty awarded to every team over the past 10 years your statistics remain an anomaly.

Exactly.

They definitely push the limit. Can't complain about it. Stop breaking the rules.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Oh dear, it's not sinking in. We're referring just as much to penalties RECEIVED.

And yes, they are an anomaly. I'm glad we agree on that.

It's the same situation. If you are pushing the limits you are going to be penalised more. You're not going to receive more penalties unless the other side is pushing the limits. Stop breaking the rules and you will be penalised less.

 

[BCH]

It's the same situation. If you are pushing the limits you are going to be penalised more. You're not going to receive more penalties unless the other side is pushing the limits. Stop breaking the rules and you will be penalised less.

So up against a Rooster's side that's made 2 GFs in the last 4 years, the opposition is rarely pushing the limits?

 

[Burwood]

The point is that they've gotten a free ride many a time so I don't know what Rooster's fans think whinging like this and making threads about it is going achieve. They're not going to get anyone feeling sorry for them.

But surely you feel sorry for them when you see a forearm to the face like this not even result in a suspension? :sarcasm:

http://youtu.be/8EjK5Jpd0VY?t=27s

 

[Lambretta]

Where'd you get the figures for this?

Jason, I was trying my best to remember where I read them
I can't remember if I just googled them or if someone here posted a link to a RL website

I remember being astounded when I realised we had only had one season since 1995 where we had won more penalties per game on average over a season.

If I get my computer back I might do some research to drag up the site I found the numbers

 

[Lambretta]

Let us know where on the field and at what point in the tackle count they're awarded as well

All penalties awarded to us are when we're already in the attacking zone on the first tackle

All penalties conceded are on the fifth tackle to assist opposition teams get a piggy back out of their own end that they don't deserve







Probably ;-)

 

[TheFrog]

In other words, season by season we have lost more penalty counts than we've won almost every year for twenty years.

Since 1980 the Roosters have received 6148 penalties and conceded 6338. A deficit of 190, an average deficit of one penalty every seven games. Put in other words, the Roosters receive 100 penalties for every 103 they concede.

Two other currently operational clubs have greater penalty deficits over the same period. Bulldogs have a deficit of 208 and the Knights have a deficit of 228, having only been in the comp since 1988.

The Roosters under the current coach have certainly been prepared to give away penalties to keep their line intact. This might be why their coach (to his credit) indicated he believed it was unfair that an opposing player was last week sin-binned for doing this. I note that a Roosters player who did exactly the same thing on Friday night was not sin-binned.

 

[Noname36]

Where did I say that? However, the awarding the Knights of an 8 - 3 penalty count wouldn't usually warrant an observation (sarcastic or otherwise) that the refs didn't want them to win.

FFS, the reason the Knights don't give away many penalties is because they're incapable of wrestling. Seriously, watch them play, they can't do it. It's one of the causes of their poor form this season. Most penalties these days are for ruck infringements and holding players down too long. You can't give away a penalty for holding down a player if you can't physically hold them down.

Compare that to the Roosters, a side that wrestles well and surely it doesn't take a genius to work out that the side that can hold the opposition down more would be the one to concede the most penalties in a match.

Roosters should only get penalties if they're warranted. They don't deserve to be given 8 just because the opposition was.

 

[Lambretta]

Where'd you get the figures for this?

Stats.rleague.com

Apologies - since 2000 we have won one season, drawn two and lost the rest. That's fifteen years.
In that period we conceded 291 more penalties than we were awarded.

We won 95 through 99

So since Gould left, we've been shit with our discipline
Can I blame Ricky Stuart for our shiteness in this respect?

The rot started with him, but we have been especially terrible since 2008, so Freddy is to blame