RIP NRL

[nick87]

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...

No, Tommy. It's not. As per the actual rule book.
Sia committed to the tackle before the ball was kicked, he didnt attack the legs, he attacked the football and got it. It's not a penalty. You're wrong.

 

[Game_Breaker]

It’s definitely a sin bin, who cares what Sterlo says. That’s just his opinion

Raiders were able to get their most damaging prop one on one with Cronk, one of the smallest guys on the field a few metres out

They almost ran that play perfectly if it weren’t for Cronk who broke the rules in a try scoring situation - clear sin bin

We’re not looking at the likelihood of scoring, that’s for a penalty try

 

[Pete Cash]

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.

Because Cronk did an illegal tackle ? Say if a player catches a ball in goal and a defender comes across and takes him high is that not a penalty try because what if the defender did a legal tackle ?

The line was completely open outside of cronk who took papalii off the ball.

 

[bileduct]

No, Tommy. It's not. As per the actual rule book.
Sia committed to the tackle before the ball was kicked, he didnt attack the legs, he attacked the football and got it. It's not a penalty. You're wrong.

BuT hE tAcKlEd HiM iN tHe AiR!?!%!

 

[nick87]

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?

There was nothing to be done about it, it was just f**king shitty all around. I still dont beleive it was right or fair to change the ruling given the circumstances. But it is what it is.

I dont ask roosters fans to say it cost us the game, because it didnt
i dont ask roosters fans to feel like their didnt earn their premiership, they did earn it

To win a comp takes a lot of things, including some luck, be it injury luck or a call here, a lucky bounce there... to win two in a row takes a bunch of skill, hard work and again, some luck... we got some luck with the Whitehead knock on, but two major potential game changing plays occured and on both of those occasions the footy gods were smiling on the roosters sunday night... doesnt mean they still didnt have to go out there and take advantage of the situation presented to them, and they did.

Doesnt invalidate their work, doesnt make it less impressive. Each team had chances, and the roosters took more of theirs. What's insane is roosters fans trying to pretend it was all above board and giving the Baghdad Bob routine.

 

[Tommy Smith]

It’s definitely a sin bin, who cares what Sterlo says. That’s just his opinion

And it "definitely" being a sin bin is just your opinion.

None of this is black and white.

 

[Walt Flanigan]

And it "definitely" being a sin bin is just your opinion.

None of this is black and white.

It definitely being a sin bin is the rule not an opinion

 

[Zadar]

There was nothing to be done about it, it was just f**king shitty all around. I still dont beleive it was right or fair to change the ruling given the circumstances. But it is what it is.

I dont ask roosters fans to say it cost us the game, because it didnt
i dont ask roosters fans to feel like their didnt earn their premiership, they did earn it

To win a comp takes a lot of things, including some luck, be it injury luck or a call here, a lucky bounce there... to win two in a row takes a bunch of skill, hard work and again, some luck... we got some luck with the Whitehead knock on, but two major potential game changing plays occured and on both of those occasions the footy gods were smiling on the roosters sunday night... doesnt mean they still didnt have to go out there and take advantage of the situation presented to them, and they did.

Doesnt invalidate their work, doesnt make it less impressive. Each team had chances, and the roosters took more of theirs. What's insane is roosters fans trying to pretend it was all above board and giving the Baghdad Bob routine.

That’s not how everyone reacted, and it also depends on how the raiders fan starts the conversation.

On Monday one of the first people I saw, the first thing they said was “ that had to be the worst call in any grand final, absolute crap”, I said, “I agree, can you believe they actually sent somebody off for ten minutes in a GF!” He said that’s not what I was talking about.
They then got in the shits even more?

If a person comes up and starts calling the whole game bullshit as it was all against them, then we have every right to defend it.

My next door neighbor is a dude, we agreed whoever lost would have to put the winning flag on their house for a week, I told him I’ll give him a few days before we decide to put it up.

Where idiots at work were cocky and wanted to bet a case of beer on the game, and now say it was bullshit and don’t want to pay up. I told them I don’t really drink much, and when they do pay up I’ll probably just throw it out after 6months.

Everyone is entitled to a whinge, but when they only offer a whinge, it’s time to crush them and tell them they were never a realistic chance anyway.

 

[Canard]

That’s not how everyone reacted, and it also depends on how the raiders fan starts the conversation.

On Monday one of the first people I saw, the first thing they said was “ that had to be the worst call in any grand final, absolute crap”, I said, “I agree, can you believe they actually sent somebody off for ten minutes in a GF!” He said that’s not what I was talking about.
They then got in the shits even more?

If a person comes up and starts calling the whole game bullshit as it was all against them, then we have every right to defend it.

My next door neighbor is a dude, we agreed whoever lost would have to put the winning flag on their house for a week, I told him I’ll give him a few days before we decide to put it up.

Where idiots at work were cocky and wanted to bet a case of beer on the game, and now say it was bullshit and don’t want to pay up. I told them I don’t really drink much, and when they do pay up I’ll probably just throw it out after 6months.

Everyone is entitled to a whinge, but when they only offer a whinge, it’s time to crush them and tell them they were never a realistic chance anyway.

This is a harrowing tale, and you seem like you are very badass.

 

[Walt Flanigan]

Everyone is entitled to a whinge, but when they only offer a whinge, it’s time to crush them and tell them they were never a realistic chance anyway.

So did you in fact crush them?

Are they still crushed?

 

[Zadar]

So did you in fact crush them?

Are they still crushed?

I hope so.

They are hoping Dennis Denuto can take it to the high court and get it overturned because of the vibe.

 

[SBD82]

It definitely being a sin bin is the rule not an opinion

What’s the rule through?

Deliberate foul play to stop a try was always my understanding. In this case the tackle was mistimed by a split second. Is that deliberate foul play?

If the rule is that a penalty conceded in a try scoring situation is a sin bin, you could argue that any player who makes a tackle and is penalised for offside while defending his own goal line should be binned.

I didn’t think that the sinbinning of Cronk was necessarily wrong, and I thought it was probably consistent with other recent rulings. But I don’t think it’s black and white. I think it’s another example where interpretation comes into the game.

 

[bileduct]

What’s the rule through?

Deliberate foul play to stop a try was always my understanding. In this case the tackle was mistimed by a split second. Is that deliberate foul play?

2:18 - Jarrod Croker momentarily puts his hand on Crichton's shoulder as Cook is looking to pass, but otherwise obstructs him in no way whatsoever. He removes his hand immediately and moments later the ball does go to Crichton who is immediately tackled by Croker. Croker is binned for 10.

That happened 20m out and was deemed a binnable offence for being a professional foul.

So it's pretty safe to say that Cronk deliberately taking out Papalii without the ball when he's one on one 5m out is a professional foul.

 

[SBD82]

2:18 - Jarrod Croker momentarily puts his hand on Crichton's shoulder as Cook is looking to pass, but otherwise obstructs him in no way whatsoever. He removes his hand immediately and moments later the ball does go to Crichton who is immediately tackled by Croker. Croker is binned for 10.

That happened 20m out and was deemed a binnable offence for being a professional foul.

So it's pretty safe to say that Cronk deliberately taking out Papalii without the ball when he's one on one 5m out is a professional foul.

That’s another good example of what I’m asking.

As I said, I think Cronk’s binning was consistent with previous rulings. But I don’t understand the basis for the ruling. Under the rule book it says “professional foul”. But should that by definition be deliberate? You could argue that Croker mistimed his tackle, and because the penalty that he conceded wasn’t deliberate, it wasn’t a professional foul.

 

[nick87]

I mean he didn’t hit him by accident
It wasn’t deliberately early but the contact was deliberate and he got there early, and in doing so prevented a try scoring opportunity

that’s a bread and butter professional foul

 

[firechild]

That’s another good example of what I’m asking.

As I said, I think Cronk’s binning was consistent with previous rulings. But I don’t understand the basis for the ruling. Under the rule book it says “professional foul”. But should that by definition be deliberate? You could argue that Croker mistimed his tackle, and because the penalty that he conceded wasn’t deliberate, it wasn’t a professional foul.

Cronk deliberately tackled Papalii and Papalii hadn't yet received the ball. I'd say that's fairly close to a black and white situation.

It's no different to a player catching a ball that has bounced off a player that is behind them. They weren't deliberately offside but it's not accidental offside because they played at the ball. The deliberate act in Cronk's case was the tackle.

 

[SBD82]

I mean he didn’t hit him by accident
It wasn’t deliberately early but the contact was deliberate and he got there early, and in doing so prevented a try scoring opportunity

that’s a bread and butter professional foul

If he didn’t deliberately hit him early how is it a professional foul? It’s not a foul to deliberately tackle someone.

That’s the crux of my misunderstanding. I always thought a professional foul has to be for a deliberate act. I may be wrong but I can’t find it anywhere in the rules. Which makes me think it’s an interpretation.

 

[SBD82]

Cronk deliberately tackled Papalii and Papalii hadn't yet received the ball. I'd say that's fairly close to a black and white situation.

It's no different to a player catching a ball that has bounced off a player that is behind them. They weren't deliberately offside but it's not accidental offside because they played at the ball. The deliberate act in Cronk's case was the tackle.

But that’s not considered a professional foul?

 

[firechild]

But that’s not considered a professional foul?

No. My comparison was in relation to what constitutes a deliberate act. Deliberate = not accidental.
While Cronk may not have deliberately tackled Papalii early, he did deliberately tackle him and it was early.

 

[Game_Breaker]

If he didn’t deliberately hit him early how is it a professional foul? It’s not a foul to deliberately tackle someone.

That’s the crux of my misunderstanding. I always thought a professional foul has to be for a deliberate act. I may be wrong but I can’t find it anywhere in the rules. Which makes me think it’s an interpretation.

You’re looking at it the wrong way
Cronks aim was to tackle Papali as soon as he got the ball. He initiated his tackle motion early to do this
This is a risky play and he mistimed it and got it wrong
Cronk knows the consequences of his risky play if he gets it wrong I.e. Papalii gets tackled without the ball