RIP NRL

[Valheru]

The Cronk sin bin absolutely wasn't controversial.

Papali didn't get the opportunity to catch the ball, end of.

Phil Gould hatewanking over it is the only thing that made dopey Roosters fans have an issue.

Of course. Nothing that went against us was controversial

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

The Cronk sin bin absolutely wasn't controversial.

Papali didn't get the opportunity to catch the ball, end of.

Phil Gould hatewanking over it is the only thing that made dopey Roosters fans have an issue.

The sin bin itself is not what we’re arguing about but events before it because Easts were robbed of possession in good field possession, meaning there wouldn’t be a sin bin to begin with. I assume the ‘Phil Gould hate wanking’ over the ref’s 6th tackle call is acceptable on this occasion, though

 

[Perth Red]

In summary
1. the trainer debacle should have been a penalty to Roosters for hitting the kickers legs (would likely have benefited the Raiders as Roosters would have gone for goal)
2. The strip should have been a penalty (havent seen it again but no one seems to be disputing it)
3. the sin bin was the right call
4. The 6 again call was a farce and probably cost the Raiders the chance of winning

In all all refs are merkins and the NRL has sht in its own bed and is now lying in it.

 

[Canard]

Of course. Nothing that went against us was controversial

What, other then Gould furiously jerking off, was controversial about denying a player, close to the try line the ability to catch the ball?

 

[Pete Cash]

If I wanted to be really controversial I think the Cronk tackle probably should be considered a penalty try.

Cronk is the only defender with a chance of tackling papalii and he commits the act of foul play

Obviously as things stand now it would be pretty unfair to award it to us but I think it should be a penalty try

 

[Chook Norris]

In summary
1. the trainer debacle should have been a penalty to Roosters for hitting the kickers legs (would likely have benefited the Raiders as Roosters would have gone for goal)
2. The strip should have been a penalty (havent seen it again but no one seems to be disputing it)
3. the sin bin was the right call
4. The 6 again call was a farce and probably cost the Raiders the chance of winning

In all all refs are merkins and the NRL has sht in its own bed and is now lying in it.

No need for conjecture on the result of the penalty. I could claim that Mitchell's below average kicking could've hit the post and concussed Wighton, he would have never played again and it would've been a 14-0 win. Point is it should've been a penalty and so all the excessive carry on regarding the trainer was unnecessary.

The rest of your points I can deal with (although can't remember the strip)

 

[Mr Spock!]

No need for conjecture on the result of the penalty. I could claim that Mitchell's below average kicking could've hit the post and concussed Wighton, he would have never played again and it would've been a 14-0 win. Point is it should've been a penalty and so all the excessive carry on regarding the trainer was unnecessary.

The rest of your points I can deal with (although can't remember the strip)

Lol the trainer fiasco was unnecessary becuase Easts fan said so.

Could well have been a Raiders 12-2 win.

Easts could only score with outside help.

 

[nick87]

Sia got the football on the charge down
If you can find me one occasion where since rules have come into place where a player has successfully charged down the ball and been penalised, ill accept that could have been a penalty to the roosters

Also the actual rule clearly states if the defender has committed to the dive before the ball is kicked, not penalty shall be given. It is beyond question Sia committed to it before the ball was kicked, and as evidence i submit that he successfully charge the f**king ball down, it's actually not humanly f**king possible to successful charge down a kick if you've committed to it after it's been kicked haha

 

[adamkungl]

Why was it “bizarrely incompetent”?

From the same angle that the ref had it looked like the right call, to me.

Other angles proved otherwise

Can't go changing calls mid-play, right or not.
As soon as he called it wrong, someone was getting screwed.
And arguably, a simple mistake is a better outcome than a broken process.

It didn't cost Raiders the game, that's delusional nonsense, but it was a shitshow. Even Roosters fans in the crowd had nfi what was doing on when he called a turnover after the tackle.

 

[Chook Norris]

Lol the trainer fiasco was unnecessary becuase Easts fan said so.

Could well have been a Raiders 12-2 win.

Easts could only score with outside help.

See point below:

It didn't cost Raiders the game, that's delusional nonsense

Also see below:

 

[Tommy Smith]

The Cronk sin bin absolutely wasn't controversial.

Papali didn't get the opportunity to catch the ball, end of.

Phil Gould hatewanking over it is the only thing that made dopey Roosters fans have an issue.

Sterlo's thoughts on the incident were, and I quote, "penalty sufficient for me." And I respect his opinion highly.

So the Cronk sin binning was far more open to interpretation that some in this thread are suggesting.

The video referee ruled it as a professional foul, which implies intent on Cronk's behalf to tackle Papalii before he caught the ball, which there clearly wasn't.

 

[Tommy Smith]

Also, this is a stone cold penalty for a dangerous tackle. And it has been almost ever since the authorities caught onto the fact that Steve Price was a grubby merkin who didn't care if he busted a player's knee when charging down a kick...

 

[Canard]

Sterlo's thoughts on the incident were, and I quote, "penalty sufficient for me." And I respect his opinion highly.

So the Cronk sin binning was far more open to interpretation that some in this thread are suggesting.

The video referee ruled it as a professional foul, which implies intent on Cronk's behalf to tackle Papalii before he caught the ball, which there clearly wasn't.

You can't say clearly wasn't, that ludicrous.

He was denied the opportunity, that is the only clear fact.

 

[Canard]

Also, this is a stone cold penalty for a dangerous tackle. And it has been almost ever since the authorities caught onto the fact that Steve Price was a grubby merkin who didn't care if he busted a player's knee when charging down a kick...

View attachment 33619

That's a shit piece of evidence for your case, it makes it look like incidental contact.

For mine a penalty wouldn't have been out of the question.

 

[Zadar]

Look, I don’t think that call lost us the game and there is no reason to believe that the raiders, even with 6 more would have scored.

but you guys can’t honestly believe hand on heart a referee changing their ruling in a dead ball spot of knock on vs strip is the same as a referee changing their ruling in live play which resulted in a player believing he had 6 more tackles v last

Of course it changes the mindset and it sucks, but I’m not sure what can be done about it though, whatever rule was in place, would either side be happy with it?

I think the only fair thing is to replay the last play. Even then we would be speculating what could and couldn’t have happened depending on the result after that.

Unfortunately as a fan you have to suck it up, I think raiders have every right to complain about the decision for a while, as the roosters would have, had the raiders scored from a six again set, and if they lost the game.

but living in Canberra, speaking to fans today, was totally different to speaking to them yesterday, the call sucked, but at least it was the right call, they said it would of been worse if it actually was 6 to go and they weren’t allowed to play on.

No words make it better, but a bit of the initial anger is wearing off, and the excitement of the new pommie half taking them one better next year is now more of the talking point.

By this time next week they will be talking about back to back themselves, and bugging me like they were the week of the grand final

 

[bileduct]

Also, this is a stone cold penalty for a dangerous tackle. And it has been almost ever since the authorities caught onto the fact that Steve Price was a grubby merkin who didn't care if he busted a player's knee when charging down a kick...

View attachment 33619

Looks to me like the contact is level with Keary's waist, and that's also with him at least a foot in the air. That photo pretty much proves that Soliola went in chest high, charged down the kick, and Keary jumped into the tackle.

Nice work.

Also, the dangerous contact with the legs rule goes back to Rambo Ronnie Gibbs who would spear into the kicker's planted leg. That didn't happen here.

 

[Pete Cash]

Sterlo's thoughts on the incident were, and I quote, "penalty sufficient for me." And I respect his opinion highly.

So the Cronk sin binning was far more open to interpretation that some in this thread are suggesting.

The video referee ruled it as a professional foul, which implies intent on Cronk's behalf to tackle Papalii before he caught the ball, which there clearly wasn't.

Nah black and white if no penalty try is given.

Cronk just threw himself at papalii. If tackling a guy without the ball with the goal line completely open is not a sin bin im not here. Rewatch it and tell me we dont score if papalii gets a clean catch on the ball.

 

[bileduct]

Nah black and white if no penalty try is given.

Cronk just threw himself at papalii. If tackling a guy without the ball with the goal line completely open is not a sin bin im not here. Rewatch it and tell me we dont score if papalii gets a clean catch on the ball.

Especially the way Papalii had been playing over the last few weeks... He busted through five or six guys to score against Melbourne and Souths. Cronk would have been toast.

 

[Valheru]

Nah black and white if no penalty try is given.

Cronk just threw himself at papalii. If tackling a guy without the ball with the goal line completely open is not a sin bin im not here. Rewatch it and tell me we dont score if papalii gets a clean catch on the ball.

Why wouldn't cronk still make the tackle if he catches the ball?

That is why it can't be a penalty try.

I have no problem with the sin bin.

 

[Zadar]

Especially the way Papalii had been playing over the last few weeks... He busted through five or six guys to score against Melbourne and Souths. Cronk would have been toast.

But then the speculation could be, penalty try awarded, Cronk then doesn’t get sin binned, the roosters don’t waste energy due to being down to 12 men and they run over the top of them late.

And Cronk did stop a bigger man in NAS last week.

Speculation is just that.