No outcry from the media when we get bad calls

[maestro1]

No team who concedes 7 tries in a half can blame the ref...

If said ref makes sure that absolutely no possession comes your way, then yes that ref can be blamed. That second half was fxcking managed by the officials. 6 nil penalties and 5 x 6 agains, as well as not calling back a blatant forward pass, penalising us for a good tackle into touch, and awarding an obvious obstruction try, and not penalising the bulldogs for JAC blatant flop and not penalising the dogs for the crusher on Eisunhuth. And sending Lomax to the bin when he barely touched him. Too many blatant things that were conveniently overlooked, yet in the first half the dogs got a stack of 6 agains that were less infringements than the ones we got pinged for in the second half. The ref thought the dogs were PERFECT as far as 6 agains go in 80 minutes of footy. Game management at its best. Oh, and Burton was in front of Sexton for their first try

 

[Dragon David]

I'd like to add that the refs should be miked up to let all and sundry know why he/she has given the 6 again ruling. It makes sense, because all we see is the refs waving their frigging arms in the air to say 6 more tackles - for what? Let us know by yelling into a mike so that we know what it is for and if needed the captain or bunker can check everything if the attacking team scores.

 

[maestro1]

On the Matty Johns show they laughed about the blatant JAC FLOP. They suggested that Hindy had been employed by the Bulldogs in a defensive capacity.

 

[Dragon David]

If said ref makes sure that absolutely no possession comes your way, then yes that ref can be blamed. That second half was fxcking managed by the officials. 6 nil penalties and 5 x 6 agains, as well as not calling back a blatant forward pass, penalising us for a good tackle into touch, and awarding an obvious obstruction try, and not penalising the bulldogs for JAC blatant flop and not penalising the dogs for the crusher on Eisunhuth. And sending Lomax to the bin when he barely touched him. Too many blatant things that were conveniently overlooked, yet in the first half the dogs got a stack of 6 agains that were less infringements than the ones we got pinged for in the second half. The ref thought the dogs were PERFECT as far as 6 agains go in 80 minutes of footy. Game management at its best.

I reckon if these rulings etc went our way and we got an even share of 6 agains or applying our argument that 6 agains are ruining the game and should not be used, then I think the final score could have been a lot different. I'm really hoping that one day we will have these things go our way for a change - not very likely you might say.

 

[jeffdragon]

If said ref makes sure that absolutely no possession comes your way, then yes that ref can be blamed. That second half was fxcking managed by the officials. 6 nil penalties and 5 x 6 agains, as well as not calling back a blatant forward pass, penalising us for a good tackle into touch, and awarding an obvious obstruction try, and not penalising the bulldogs for JAC blatant flop and not penalising the dogs for the crusher on Eisunhuth. And sending Lomax to the bin when he barely touched him. Too many blatant things that were conveniently overlooked, yet in the first half the dogs got a stack of 6 agains that were less infringements than the ones we got pinged for in the second half. The ref thought the dogs were PERFECT as far as 6 agains go in 80 minutes of footy. Game management at its best. Oh, and Burton was in front of Sexton for their first try

Bingo.
Even in Tigers gam, Galvin in front of kicker and inside ten when Bula scored.

 

[Gippsy]

Agree wholeheartedly. As I said in another post, that was a hatchet job on us in the second half. No penalties, no 6 agains, tries being allowed when they shouldn't have been, a heap of dodgy calls. It was like someone got in the refs ear and told him that Dogs didn't get a penalty in the first half and that the Dragons are crap and should not be winning.

 

[rasaint]

Hey Jeff Dragon I saw that also with Galvin at least 1 possibly 2 metres offside in the short highlights package. He stopped about 5 possibly 6 metres away from Cow’s fullback going in to catch. Nothing against Tigs ( good friends with a few Tigs supporters ) and Galvin is a talent. Simply saying Galvin running offside into the 10 zone probably distracted Cow’s catcher and giving Bulla a good jump.

Being fair it is hard to ref Rugby League and with rule calibrations and new rules it’s quite frenetic. Eisenhuth getting bowled over would have little influence in stopping the Dog’s winger scoring a try. However, my observation is this is a classic 2024 case of the decoy running into defenders and it’s no try regardless. Even commented on by commentators.

Yes, inconsistent paradox rulings really upset fans.

 

[<StGeorgeDragons>]

After having switched off early the other night pretty much over my team and the NRL, I decided to watch a bit of the Raiders Roosters game. As soon as I do I see Keary given a penalty try for the most ludicrous of reasons. He was brushed by a Raiders player and then has ample opportunity to collect the ball and score but he muffs it. Sure, give a penalty or even bin the Raiders bloke but award a penalty try for a player who knocks on the ball?

Not as bad as the decisions that went against us the other night but already a front page news article of Canberra blowing up about it. As the OP stated, Dragons don't even raise a whimper. Some clubs have a bit of passion and then there's us. I know whinging doesn't get you anywhere unless you're Robinson but I honestly expected Shane to be a bit more ruthless in the pressers thus far.

Of course the Roosters get the rub of the green as they did in the 2019 GF. Nothing much has changed with the favouring that goes on in this comp. Utterly sick of it but I have been saying that for years now.

 

[Lovemedragons]

After having switched off early the other night pretty much over my team and the NRL, I decided to watch a bit of the Raiders Roosters game. As soon as I do I see Keary given a penalty try for the most ludicrous of reasons. He was brushed by a Raiders player and then has ample opportunity to collect the ball and score but he muffs it. Sure, give a penalty or even bin the Raiders bloke but award a penalty try for a player who knocks on the ball?

Not as bad as the decisions that went against us the other night but already a front page news article of Canberra blowing up about it. As the OP stated, Dragons don't even raise a whimper. Some clubs have a bit of passion and then there's us. I know whinging doesn't get you anywhere unless you're Robinson but I honestly expected Shane to be a bit more ruthless in the pressers thus far.

Of course the Roosters get the rub of the green as they did in the 2019 GF. Nothing much has changed with the favouring that goes on in this comp. Utterly sick of it but I have been saying that for years now.

Just looking at the Roosters ridiculous roster busting at its seams with marquees tells me clearly who the favoured teams are. Their backline is the salary cap, their forwards and reserves are another.

 

[Dragon David]

I'd like to add that the refs should be miked up to let all and sundry know why he/she has given the 6 again ruling. It makes sense, because all we see is the refs waving their frigging arms in the air to say 6 more tackles - for what? Let us know by yelling into a mike so that we know what it is for and if needed the captain or bunker can check everything if the attacking team scores.

Sorry my bad. They do say why the 6 agains are given when they are displayed on the screen. Should have watched a game first before I posted this shit.

 

[<StGeorgeDragons>]

Sorry my bad. They do say why the 6 agains are given when they are displayed on the screen. Should have watched a game first before I posted this shit.

Even so, 6 agains need to go. Yep they have sped up the game and made it more continuous action but they've changed the sport. No doubt they are not fairly distributed and play into the hands of some teams more than others.

 

[Gourley's Socks]

Sorry my bad. They do say why the 6 agains are given when they are displayed on the screen. Should have watched a game first before I posted this shit.

My son doesn't much care for RL but he watched a few minutes of the Dragons game the other night.

At one stage after a six-again, he asked "What's a ruck infringement?"

All I could say was "I don't know" and that most of the time, most people don't know.

 

[maestro1]

I reckon if these rulings etc went our way and we got an even share of 6 agains or applying our argument that 6 agains are ruining the game and should not be used, then I think the final score could have been a lot different. I'm really hoping that one day we will have these things go our way for a change - not very likely you might say.

If we get 50% possession in the second half, we win

 

[maestro1]

We are way down the bottom few teams for penalties received and 6-agains received. Most of the penalties we get are absolute penalties where the ref has no choice due to a smack across the chops, crusher, blatant flop, etc. We get very few discretionary penalties where the ref has to decide if a penalty is warranted. The frustrating thing is that whilst we don't receive these penalties, our opposition in the very same game, get 4 or 5 of them. In so many games we have received none or one 6-again and the ones we get are usually after the 60 minutes mark and the game is just about out of reach.

 

[maestro1]

Ennis making a stack of excuses for the Sharks.
Yet, he had nothing for us on Thursday night

 

[maestro1]

The 6-again rule is the manual version of a car. In the past the car was an automatic and the players generally controlled the momentum and game. Now the manual version sees the officials changing gears, dropping the clutch, double-shifting to control momentum and the game.
It is too powerful a tool left in the wrong hands.

 

[jeffdragon]

Hey Jeff Dragon I saw that also with Galvin at least 1 possibly 2 metres offside in the short highlights package. He stopped about 5 possibly 6 metres away from Cow’s fullback going in to catch. Nothing against Tigs ( good friends with a few Tigs supporters ) and Galvin is a talent. Simply saying Galvin running offside into the 10 zone probably distracted Cow’s catcher and giving Bulla a good jump.

Being fair it is hard to ref Rugby League and with rule calibrations and new rules it’s quite frenetic. Eisenhuth getting bowled over would have little influence in stopping the Dog’s winger scoring a try. However, my observation is this is a classic 2024 case of the decoy running into defenders and it’s no try regardless. Even commented on by commentators.

Yes, inconsistent paradox rulings really upset fans.

Just remembering the Hargraves on Edwards no try.

 

[Inisai Toga]

Another couple of close nail biting
on the edge of your seat thrillers again this afternoon ….

 

[Dragon Blood]

Another couple of close nail biting thrillers
in the edge of you’re seat thrillers again this afternoon ….

*Update

5 out of 6 games this round so far with the winning teams scoring 40+. Tomorrow, Bronco's and Phins could be 7 out of 8 games with 40+ scores.

This once great game has become WWE like faux entertainment rather than a sport.

 

[Dragon David]

Gee I'm mad