RIP NRL

[blaza88z]

He should've gone with his initial decision, it's not acceptable to change your decision on the run when it hasn't been that way for the entire season, wrong call or right call.

 

[Pete Cash]

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.

Can you name a time this has ever happened?

 

[Pete Cash]

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.

It wasnt an identical call. The ref (well touchie) made an error. They made an error against us when we played the storm in the regular season. Mistakes happen

But what shouldn't happen is the ref changing a call while the ball is alive. I dont believe roosters fans are this dumb because the eastern suburbs would be flooded by drool otherwise. So why are they pretending to be so stupid on league unlimited

 

[Valheru]

Can you name a time this has ever happened?

That doesn't make the disadvantage worse.

As I said, they were denied the opportunity of a 2nd kick.

 

[betcats]

That doesn't make the disadvantage worse.

As I said, they were denied the opportunity of a 2nd kick.

It’s an asterisk premiership.

 

[Pete Cash]

That doesn't make the disadvantage worse.

As I said, they were denied the opportunity of a 2nd kick.

No we were actually denied 6 tackles because Cummins ruled that tedesco touched it.

If he had called last tackle from the first place we were denied an opportunity to make an appropriate play.

Can you name another time the ref has changed his mind while the ball is alive?

 

[Game_Breaker]

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.

I blame the refs
They broke the rules

 

[bileduct]

That doesn't make the disadvantage worse.

As I said, they were denied the opportunity of a 2nd kick.

... and they were denied the chance of spinning the ball out wide and scoring, denied the chance of putting in a grubber and scoring or forcing a dropout, denied the chance of kicking a field goal...

No we were actually denied 6 tackles because Cummins ruled that tedesco touched it.

Oh, that too.

 

[betcats]

Roosters didn’t look like scoring the entire second then within a couple of tackles of this woeful call they go 80 to take the lead, it ruined the fabric of the match completely.

@Valheru changing a call like that during play is against the rules, if it happens play is stopped and the attacking team gets the ball back.


I’m not saying the raiders would of scored or the result would’ve of been different but that was a monumental error.

 

[Game_Breaker]

Roosters fans seems to be confused with refs making wrong calls based on their judgment and refs breaking the rules to change their call

I agree, same rule that benefited the roosters when the ball hit the own trainer should apply in this instance

 

[Valheru]

No we were actually denied 6 tackles because Cummins ruled that tedesco touched it.

If he had called last tackle from the first place we were denied an opportunity to make an appropriate play.

Can you name another time the ref has changed his mind while the ball is alive?

They weren't entitled to 6 more tackles to begin with.

The net result was no opportunity for a 2nd kick.

I can't name another time It has happened but that doesn't make the result worse.

 

[Valheru]

Roosters fans seems to be confused with refs making wrong calls based on their judgment and refs breaking the rules to change their call

I agree, same rule that benefited the roosters when the ball hit the own trainer should apply in this instance

So it is ok for us to be more disadvantaged than Canberra were due to one red making a wrong decision?

The actual result was the least impact to either side of all the options.

 

[nick87]

So it is ok for us to be more disadvantaged than Canberra were due to one red making a wrong decision?

The actual result was the least impact to either side of all the options.

yes, just as in the first half, instead of us having the football, deep on the attack after a charge down, the ball was handed back to your team because your trainer interfered in the game

it’s really simple, the referee once he signalled 6 to go was obligated by the laws of the game to stick with that decision, or rule a mutual infringement

 

[Valheru]

yes, just as in the first half, instead of us having the football, deep on the attack after a charge down, the ball was handed back to your team because your trainer interfered in the game

thats how a mutual infringement works

Is it a mutual infringement though? The audio suggests he was asking if it was 6 again, regrettably he waved his hand as well.

I've said I believe the trainer thing was a way bigger deal than the 6 again issue. I'm all for a rule change there.

 

[nick87]

Yes, it is
He signalled 6 to go, and said 6 to go to the players

that’s it. That’s the decision made, he can’t change that in a live ball scenario
He either has to stick with that ruling or rule a mutual infringement

those are his options by the rule book. What he did was not an option available to him, and if he was going to break the laws of the game in the name of justice, handing the raiders the football when the roosters trainer denied them a try scoring chance might have been a good time to do it

 

[Pete Cash]

They weren't entitled to 6 more tackles to begin with.

The net result was no opportunity for a 2nd kick.

I can't name another time It has happened but that doesn't make the result worse.

I am sure the Raiders and the Roosters have worn an incorrect 6 to go call in the past. I can deal with ref error. I very rarely actually complain when refs make mistakes.

What is simply ridiculous is a ref changing his call while the ball is alive effectively robbing a team of a chance to play to the situation. If fans had any sense they wouldnt be downplaying it.

 

[nick87]

And I want to say again, this didn’t cost us the game and the roosters did deserve to win

but there is no question the officials did not follow the rule book on this incident. That’s just facts

 

[nick87]

I’m super curious as to why roosters fans are so eager to defend the official

They were defending so well, there is no reason to think the raiders score that next set and then if the roosters win that game, all we’re talking about is what a fantastic achievement it is, how tough and resilient they are

instead this game will always be known for this call. This f**king clown robbed the roosters of a celebration of their achievements
I’d be f**king filthy about that if I were them. I certainly wouldn’t be going into bat for this guy

 

[some11]

He should've gone with his initial decision, it's not acceptable to change your decision on the run when it hasn't been that way for the entire season, wrong call or right call.

 

[Game_Breaker]

So it is ok for us to be more disadvantaged than Canberra were due to one red making a wrong decision?

The actual result was the least impact to either side of all the options.

That’s the rules

Ref changing his call impacted play. He isn’t allowed to do that
Scrum to attacking team

Same as the ball hitting your trainer