RIP NRL

[Valheru]

The play was irregularly affected by the 6 again and change in the play. It should have been treated like the trainer incident in the first half and the Raiders should have received a scrum.

This may seem unfair and it is, because it is the result of the 2 refereeing errors in the lead up. But the Raiders had possession and were denied an opportunity.

What logic are you using to come to this solution?

The trainer one was adjudicated as per the current rules. Not a rule I be easily agree with but it is what it is.

The 6 again resulted from a wrong call against the roosters to a correct call that prevented Canberra from putting a kick in. Giving them the scrum would have been the same as the original incorrect call standing.

 

[bileduct]

What logic are you using to come to this solution?

The trainer one was adjudicated as per the current rules. Not a rule I be easily agree with but it is what it is.

The 6 again resulted from a wrong call against the roosters to a correct call that prevented Canberra from putting a kick in. Giving them the scrum would have been the same as the original incorrect call standing.

Play was irregularly impacted as a result of the referees not following their own rules and causing confusion, resulting in a disadvantage to the attacking team.

Of course that's not the fault of either team. So as per mutual infringement rules the Raiders get the feed as a result of the ball being in their attacking half.

 

[Meth]

I'm entering into this thread late, to weigh in.

The trainer incident was one of those things. A bit like the Stokes' deflection in the CWC. An anomaly of an event, unfortunately, happening on a big occasion and favouring a team against what we feel would be justice.

The 6 again? Correct, but as soon as Cummins motioned 6 again, the Raiders deserved the ball for another set and Cummins should just shoulder the incorrect call.

Cronk deserved to go to the bin. Clear as day.

Ultimately though, the Roosters took their opportunities and the Raiders didn't. That's the game.

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

Another perspective if people are interested

https://www.theroar.com.au/2019/10/11/chooks-won-they-were-better-the-end/

 

[Captain Apollo]

Another perspective if people are interested

https://www.theroar.com.au/2019/10/11/chooks-won-they-were-better-the-end/

I love this part from the article -

The keening about the call being unfair reminds of the constant baying for consistency. And here’s a thing about that: you can’t have that either. Because human beings are by nature inconsistent.

Players, administrators, referees, callers, fans. There are no robots.

And consistency is overrated anyway. With consistency you get knock-ons that aren’t, forward passes that don’t go forward. People have mistaken consistency for uniformity, and calls are consistently wrong.

Rugby union has gone down this path and is now penalising the playing of rugby union.

World soccer has its VAR and consistently gets things wrong, just in slow-motion. It’s not better.

Rugby league demands perfection it can never have and so will never be happy. Rugby league’s default setting is Not Happy Jan.

 

[typicalfan]

What logic are you using to come to this solution?

The trainer one was adjudicated as per the current rules. Not a rule I be easily agree with but it is what it is.

The 6 again resulted from a wrong call against the roosters to a correct call that prevented Canberra from putting a kick in. Giving them the scrum would have been the same as the original incorrect call standing.

But the correct decision based on the rules given the ref changed the live call. Canberra had territorial advantage when it happened.

 

[Lambretta]

The play was irregularly affected by the 6 again and change in the play. It should have been treated like the trainer incident in the first half and the Raiders should have received a scrum.

This may seem unfair and it is, because it is the result of the 2 refereeing errors in the lead up. But the Raiders had possession and were denied an opportunity.

Thank you for clarifying and I get what you're saying but there are a few points in this instance

1. According to the recording of tge refs mike, the ref called "6 again is it? No last tackle, last tackle , last tackle, its still the last, its still the last etc" before Wighton even received the ball. He had opportunity to listen to 90% of the referees instruction rather than 10%

2. The call of last tackle was correct.
Giving the Raiders an attacking scrum instead of handing over is just making up rules to make someone feel happy rather than following the rules of the game. Had the Raiders scored off the ensuing set of six after the scrum you suggest, then the Raiders would have scored a try even knowing that they had been given a scrum when a Roosters player hadn't even touched the ball.

In this instance the only real choice is being unfair towards one team

You have the Raiders being unfairly effected because of an initial hesitation by the referees and being unclear about a call. This caused confusion and Wighton ended up turning over the ball.
Was it unfair? It was definitely unfair. It was very tough on Canberra and I have complete sympathy for them

The alternative option, which most people seem to prefer is to be more unfair to the Roosters than they were to the Raiders. The second referee and linesman indicated no Rooster touch, which has been shown to be correct.

Giving a scrum out of sympathy, knowing there was no touch from the Roosters and where officials with a view of that had indicated such would be a blatant disregard for the rules

As much as it was tough on the Raiders, a turnover was the fairest outcome

It is a shame for the Raiders (and all the neutrals who wanted them to win) that the Roosters scored on the next set. But the Raiders were given the opportunity to defend. They just failed to do so. You can't blame the referees for that.

 

[taste2taste]

Lets just bring in captains challenge and be done with all this "refs are ruining the game" nonsense!

With captains challenge refs call it as they see it with the confidence if they make a howler the players can challenge it. There will be no more endless video refs or bad calls deciding a game.

As soon as Cummins ruled 6 again Tedesco could have challenged the play, 1 replay shows he didn't touch it. Play on
Much has been made of the incorrect strip penalty in the 48th minutes that lead to Cronks sin binnimng, as soon as Cummins called penalty Taukeiho could challenge it, 1 replay shows he didn't strip the ball, play on

Each team gets 2 challenges for the game, just like cricket.

 

[taste2taste]

Raiders fans are forgetting they benefited from a howler in week 1 of the finals.
The Storm were denied a last set of 6 when Vunivalu was incorrectly ruled to have gone over the sideline.

Karma is a b%^ch

 

[Valheru]

Thank you for clarifying and I get what you're saying but there are a few points in this instance

1. According to the recording of tge refs mike, the ref called "6 again is it? No last tackle, last tackle , last tackle, its still the last, its still the last etc" before Wighton even received the ball. He had opportunity to listen to 90% of the referees instruction rather than 10%

2. The call of last tackle was correct.
Giving the Raiders an attacking scrum instead of handing over is just making up rules to make someone feel happy rather than following the rules of the game. Had the Raiders scored off the ensuing set of six after the scrum you suggest, then the Raiders would have scored a try even knowing that they had been given a scrum when a Roosters player hadn't even touched the ball.

In this instance the only real choice is being unfair towards one team

You have the Raiders being unfairly effected because of an initial hesitation by the referees and being unclear about a call. This caused confusion and Wighton ended up turning over the ball.
Was it unfair? It was definitely unfair. It was very tough on Canberra and I have complete sympathy for them

The alternative option, which most people seem to prefer is to be more unfair to the Roosters than they were to the Raiders. The second referee and linesman indicated no Rooster touch, which has been shown to be correct.

Giving a scrum out of sympathy, knowing there was no touch from the Roosters and where officials with a view of that had indicated such would be a blatant disregard for the rules

As much as it was tough on the Raiders, a turnover was the fairest outcome

It is a shame for the Raiders (and all the neutrals who wanted them to win) that the Roosters scored on the next set. But the Raiders were given the opportunity to defend. They just failed to do so. You can't blame the referees for that.

Well said

I would also add that although it was unfair to Canberra to have the decision changed it was only mildly so. Let's be clear about what it cost them, a chance to kick the ball a 2nd time. Nothing more nothing less. It's not as if they dropped the ball in a mad scramble and we ran 80 with it to score.

They were tackled and they had us pinned in our 20 with a set line.

 

[bileduct]

Thank you for clarifying and I get what you're saying but there are a few points in this instance

1. According to the recording of tge refs mike, the ref called "6 again is it? No last tackle, last tackle , last tackle, its still the last, its still the last etc" before Wighton even received the ball. He had opportunity to listen to 90% of the referees instruction rather than 10%

2. The call of last tackle was correct.
Giving the Raiders an attacking scrum instead of handing over is just making up rules to make someone feel happy rather than following the rules of the game. Had the Raiders scored off the ensuing set of six after the scrum you suggest, then the Raiders would have scored a try even knowing that they had been given a scrum when a Roosters player hadn't even touched the ball.

In this instance the only real choice is being unfair towards one team

You have the Raiders being unfairly effected because of an initial hesitation by the referees and being unclear about a call. This caused confusion and Wighton ended up turning over the ball.
Was it unfair? It was definitely unfair. It was very tough on Canberra and I have complete sympathy for them

The alternative option, which most people seem to prefer is to be more unfair to the Roosters than they were to the Raiders. The second referee and linesman indicated no Rooster touch, which has been shown to be correct.

Giving a scrum out of sympathy, knowing there was no touch from the Roosters and where officials with a view of that had indicated such would be a blatant disregard for the rules

As much as it was tough on the Raiders, a turnover was the fairest outcome

It is a shame for the Raiders (and all the neutrals who wanted them to win) that the Roosters scored on the next set. But the Raiders were given the opportunity to defend. They just failed to do so. You can't blame the referees for that.

1. That 10% is the only part that matters. Irrespective of what discussion the control ref is having with his assistants, the fact remains that he made a decision by signalling six again. He can't change his decision mid-play, and players should not be expected to continually watch referees to see if they've changed their mind after signalling their decision.

2. Yes, the mutual infringement rule is unfair, but that's the rule when play has been irregularly impacted. The Roosters already had the benefit of one unfair mutual infringement decision after using up their entire set of six, even though it was actually their 14th man that interfered with the play rather than it not being the fault of either team.

 

[Pete Cash]

Raiders fans are forgetting they benefited from a howler in week 1 of the finals.
The Storm were denied a last set of 6 when Vunivalu was incorrectly ruled to have gone over the sideline.

Karma is a b%^ch

Womp womp

 

[Pete Cash]

Well said

I would also add that although it was unfair to Canberra to have the decision changed it was only mildly so. Let's be clear about what it cost them, a chance to kick the ball a 2nd time. Nothing more nothing less. It's not as if they dropped the ball in a mad scramble and we ran 80 with it to score.

They were tackled and they had us pinned in our 20 with a set line.

It was massively unfair dont down play it. Point me out another time a ref has just randomly changed his mind while the ball was alive

 

[bileduct]

Raiders fans are forgetting they benefited from a howler in week 1 of the finals.
The Storm were denied a last set of 6 when Vunivalu was incorrectly ruled to have gone over the sideline.

Karma is a b%^ch

Nah mate, you're forgetting that the ruling against Vunivalu was karma for what happened only a few weeks before in another game between the Raiders and Storm.

Vunivalu jumps off the line, lands in touch and knocks the ball back into the field of play. Ruled play on.

 

[Valheru]

It was massively unfair dont down play it. Point me out another time a ref has just randomly changed his mind while the ball was alive

It was a slight inconvenience. Correct decision was last tackle which was the decision that was made. The raiders were denied the chance of a 2nd kick.

 

[betcats]

Looking forward to them changing every wrong call next year or will they only do that for the rorters? You know when they call a stripping penalty that is clearly a knock on? there’s 50 of those a week are they going to change them next year? Claming they got this right is going to come back and bite the nrl on the ass i garauntee it. You cannot change a f**king call like that what a joke. Ruined the game completely for mine.

If they were desperate to give that ball to the roosters they should stopped the game and explained themselves not just played on like that(which still would’ve been incorrect according to the rules but at least it’s fair)

Amateur hour continues for the NRL.

 

[taste2taste]

Nah mate, you're forgetting that the ruling against Vunivalu was karma for what happened only a few weeks before in another game between the Raiders and Storm.

Vunivalu jumps off the line, lands in touch and knocks the ball back into the field of play. Ruled play on.

Well, that's week 1 karma for the Grand final karma but you are forgetting the round 19 karma when...... Na, only joking..well played

 

[taste2taste]

Womp womp

You get what I'm saying though ?

Its weak to whinge when the Raiders benefited from an almost identical call only weeks earlier.

Using Raiders fans logic, there is absolutely NO DOUBT the Storm would have scored in the set of 6 they were denied, meaning the Raiders wouldn't have even made the GF.

 

[betcats]

The Argument that they got it right because 6 again was the wrong call doesn’t fly. They make wrong calls all the time, the replay shows the call was wrong before play resumes and they still do not change it. Ive seen a million wrong calls in footy, only once have i seen them call 6 again and then change it while play was still live, that’s a clear disadvantage for the raiders imo.

 

[nick87]

You have the Raiders being unfairly effected because of an initial hesitation by the referees

just to take an issue with this. There was no hesitation what so ever
The official did not make no call and seek advice

he was very clear and deliberate with signalling his decision. There was no hesitation, and confusion caused to the Raiders was a direct result of the official clearly signalling and verbally telling the team 6 again

again, there was no hesitation. The call was made and by rule, should not have been then reversed unless for foul play.

If the official felt he got the call incorrect, he should have stopped the game, informed both captains that a mutual infringement had occurred where play was impacted through no fault of either team, and just as the trainer situation in the first half, a scrum being awarded to the attacking team by territory