Can someone point out where in the rulebook it states that the referees are obliged to give a even share of penalties?
It's not - but the law of averages works wonders over time
Take the Roosters out of the equasion for a minute - nearly every other team in the competition, over an extended period will find that they give away and receive a fairly similar number of penalties.
The next worse offender to the Roosters has a differential of close to -100. That's about 10 penalties down per season or one every two games. Most other teams, by and large receive what they concede.
Why is this? People can cite individual players, deliberately conceding penalties, coaching tactics, the fact we defend more etc
We've had different coaches - from the days when Gus left Bondi. How many coaches have we had since then? 6? They all instilled poor discipline as the way to win games? Ah yeah. Right.
We've had different players (yes we've had the occasional penalty machine, but then so have lots of other teams)
So we're also to be believe we've been deliberately conceding penalties for 15 years or more to win games, when every statistic shows that conceding penalties loses you games. That would be a smart move. Why doesn't everyone else do it?
We defend more? Yes, we do our share because we concede so many f**king penalties.....
The only factor over time that can bend the law of averages is the human one. Look at the humans that award the penalties both FOR and AGAINST teams and you'll find a large part of the problem that the Roosters are faced with. I'm not saying we're not part of that problem, but we seem to be held to a different standard to everyone else and that isn't fair.
