MNF R5 - Raiders v Roosters *Spoilers/Discussion*

[legend]

What about the Soliola try where it looked very obvious that Graham got his hand to the ball first?

I also thought Withers deserved benefit of the doubt but was denied.

Fact is the better side won and you know very little about Rugby League if you think the Roosters were the better team last night.

 

[perverse]

What about the Soliola try where it looked very obvious that Graham got his hand to the ball first?

I also thought Withers deserved benefit of the doubt but was denied.

Fact is the better side won and you know very little about Rugby League if you think the Roosters were the better team last night.

agreed.

 

[mxlegend99]

I also thought Withers deserved benefit of the doubt but was denied.

What doubt? No way was that a try, his finger tips propelled the ball forward. He had no control at all. No BOTD required.

The Raiders were lucky last night. The Roosters bombed 3 easy tries. Mini handed them a try with a drop ball, and when Mini knocked that ball down to save a try, they got a lucky bounce to regather it and score anyway.

Roosters were the better team, but got unlucky with some dud calls, and knock-ons at crucial times.

 

[Lime_Green]

The Raiders were lucky last night. The Roosters bombed 3 easy tries. Mini handed them a try with a drop ball, and when Mini knocked that ball down to save a try, they got a lucky bounce to regather it and score anyway.

Roosters were the better team, but got unlucky with some dud calls, and knock-ons at crucial times.

Good teams don't make those mistakes. They were unforced errors, that cost them the game. They were not the better team because they could not make those passes stick.

 

[mxlegend99]

Good teams don't make those mistakes. They were unforced errors, that cost them the game. They were not the better team because they could not make those passes stick.

I never said they were a good team. They aren't.

Roosters were playing their best last night. Raiders weren't even near their best. Roosters for most of the game looked the better team.

 

[waltzing Meninga]

I never said they were a good team. They aren't.

Roosters were playing their best last night. Raiders weren't even near their best. Roosters for most of the game looked the better team.

Thats utter BS.

The calls went 50/50. The lincoln Withers no try could have easily been given the benifit of the doubt. I din't see his hand come off the ball at all.

What about the so called "high tackle" the video ref pinned Weyman for that lead directly to a roosters try!! he hit the bloke below the nipples!!!

Thats a possible 12 point turn around to the raiders.

If you weigh that up against the Purtell try (which was a 50/50 call IMO as it looked as the the roosters player knocked the ball forward with his leg), I don't see how the roosters cam off any worse.

 

[mxlegend99]

The calls went 50/50. The lincoln Withers no try could have easily been given the benifit of the doubt. I din't see his hand come off the ball at all.

His hand was next to the ball when it hit the ground. No control over it at all. No try.

What about the so called "high tackle" the video ref pinned Weyman for that lead directly to a roosters try!! he hit the bloke below the nipples!!!

That call was fine.... What about the Roberts going into touch only the touchies giving it back to the Roosters? That was definitely wrong. That'd piss me off the most.

If you weigh that up against the Purtell try (which was a 50/50 call IMO as it looked as the the roosters player knocked the ball forward with his leg), I don't see how the roosters cam off any worse.

His body stopped moving and his arm reached forward a few inches after his momentum had stopped. Purtell didn't even look convinced it was a try.

 

[Raider Azz]

who gives a f**k, seriously. we got the two points, and the roosters are still on 999 and in last place. thats all i care about.

 

[mxlegend99]

And well on their way to the wooden spoon.

Anything short of key injuries to other clubs, will make sure that doesn't change.

 

[waltzing Meninga]

His hand was next to the ball when it hit the ground. No control over it at all. No try.

Show me where is the rules it states you have to have control of the ball?

All that is needed is downward pressure on the ball, as long as no previous error has been commited such as a knock on.

The ball never left his hand, and his hand was on the abll at the time it hit the ground.

In that instance it is absolutely impossible NOT to have some amount of downward pressure on the ball.

 

[badav]

What is wrong with Neville Costigan.

I have said it before he players with too much aggression. This causes him to do stupid things. He is going to single handedly cost you atleast one game this season

 

[Walt Flanigan]

Anyone who says the Raiders were lucky needs their head examined. You don't gain a 20 point lead in a game purely by bad calls and "luck". If anything the Roosters were lucky not get pasted. They probably would have if the Raiders weren't playing the second half with 2 players down including their playmaker. Having 4 players running around with concussion didn't help either. The Roosters played well in the second half but were atrocious in the first while the Raiders were on fire. That's right there was indeed a first half.

 

[Walt Flanigan]

What is wrong with Neville Costigan.

I have said it before he players with too much aggression. This causes him to do stupid things. He is going to single handedly cost you atleast one game this season

Nev bitch slapping Anasta was one of the funniest things I've seen in a while, it was worth the Roosters scoring off the penalty. I was still cracking up while the conversion sailed over the crossbar.

But yes, he is proabably a touch on the aggressive side. I don't mind that though, it's the sort of mongrel the Raiders forward pack had been missing for years.

 

[mxlegend99]

Show me where is the rules it states you have to have control of the ball?

Well, from Wikipedia.... (the only thing google returned).

To perform the try:

• the ball must be placed on the ground within the attacking team's designated in-goal area (or on the try-line itself) by applying positive downward pressure by the hand or forearm without losing control of the ball. This act is known as grounding the football.
• The try must be completed before or at the moment a tackle is completed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playing_rugby_league

The ball never left his hand, and his hand was on the abll at the time it hit the ground.

In that instance it is absolutely impossible NOT to have some amount of downward pressure on the ball.

His fingertips were beside the ball and propelled it toward the dead ball line before it had been grounded. He had no downward pressure or control of the ball. The ball was being pushed away from him. No try. Correct decision.

 

[Walt Flanigan]

His fingertips were beside the ball and propelled it toward the dead ball line before it had been grounded. He had no downward pressure or control of the ball. The ball was being pushed away from him. No try. Correct decision.

The video replay I think indicated a fraction of downward pressure and I have seen them given before but that happened not too far away from where I was seated at the game and it looked like a knock-on for all money. Wasn't too upset about it.

 

[mxlegend99]

It's another one that is a massive grey area for sure. One game it's a try, the next it isn't. For mine, you should have to have obvious control. Which would mean a lot of tries each week aren't awarded. But imo too many tries which are basically knock-ons get awarded.

 

[Raider Ultra]

The ref was appalling for both sides, missed numerous forward passes from both sides, that Zillman-dead ball line call was absolutely terrbile. I could see it from the back of the stand. Hope we don't get Maxwell again, 2nd game at Bruce he's butchered this year.

 

[Purtell The Turtle]

Well, from Wikipedia.... (the only thing google returned).
[/list]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playing_rugby_league



His fingertips were beside the ball and propelled it toward the dead ball line before it had been grounded. He had no downward pressure or control of the ball. The ball was being pushed away from him. No try. Correct decision.

You can't use Wikipedia to back up an argument, John Moron can go in there and update the Wikipedia with whatever he likes. According to the Internation Rules of Rugby League, Grounding the Ball is:
A) Placing the ball on the ground with hand or hands or
B) exerting downward pressure on the ball with hand or arm, the ball itself being on the ground or
C) dropping the ball and covering it with the part of the body above the waist and below the neck, the ball itself being on the ground.

see http://www.nswrl.com.au/files/rules/international_rules.pdf

So, from those simple laws, and also detailed in the scoring section, Withers try could have been awarded...however for some reason only known to the Video Ref, it wasn't a try.

It's also interesting to note that the Roberts try could have been awarded based on the fact that both the attacking player and the defending player grounded the ball at the same time, which is a try in the rule book.

 

[melon....]

Bad luck to the Roosters. Can Berra will not win the spoon. Book it...

It wont be Easts...that leaves LOL@SOUFFS.

I blame Finch, that little bucked tooth idiot is still hurting us....via his old man.

What a joke.

 

[Evergreen]

It wont be Easts...that leaves LOL@SOUFFS.

I blame Finch, that little bucked tooth idiot is still hurting us....via his old man.

What a joke.

And so the Finch virus goes full circle - it will happen to Parra too :lol: