RIP NRL

[Tommy Smith]

Regardless of how you feel about the referee correcting his call. The result was only Raiders missing out on 1 play... which they had already attempted to finish. So basically half a play which would most likely have been a rushed kick. No way to know what comes of the rushed kick obviously.

Compared to the occassions where they incorrectly rule on strips/lost balls which cost a team ~20+ metres and 6 plays, missed forward passes, foul play that goes unpunished, incorrectly awarded or disallowed tries etc. This mistake is far from the worst.

It was the correct decision made in the wrong way. I dont believe that's worse than the wrong decision being made and stuck with personally. Sadly they make mistakes every game.

I was going for the Raiders and hate both Cummins and the Roosters. IMO this was an improvement on Cummins usual form as a referee. I dont think anyone would care if the teams roles in this were reversed as we all hate the Roosters. I think that's the main reason people are carrying on about it being such a bad call too as we all wanted to see Roosters fail.

This man speaks the truth. And he's a Roosters hater so can't be accused of bias.

If it was the Roosters on the end of this bad call that was actually a good call but only bad call because they changed it from a bad call to a good call then we'd have heard "SUCK SHITTTTT RORTERSSSS" and nothing else from the neutrals.

Again, we know this to be true after the Storm got carved up by the refs vs the Raiders with the Vunivalu call and the far more egregious blatant professional foul which didn't result in a sin binning (but saw Klein dropped).

We all celebrated the refereeing incompetence that night. But now with the shoe on the other foot we've got the same neutrals on suicide watch a full week after the event.

 

[Valheru]

Regardless of how you feel about the referee correcting his call. The result was only Raiders missing out on 1 play... which they had already attempted to finish. So basically half a play which would most likely have been a rushed kick. No way to know what comes of the rushed kick obviously.

Compared to the occassions where they incorrectly rule on strips/lost balls which cost a team ~20+ metres and 6 plays, missed forward passes, foul play that goes unpunished, incorrectly awarded or disallowed tries etc. This mistake is far from the worst.

It was the correct decision made in the wrong way. I dont believe that's worse than the wrong decision being made and stuck with personally. Sadly they make mistakes every game.

I was going for the Raiders and hate both Cummins and the Roosters. IMO this was an improvement on Cummins usual form as a referee. I dont think anyone would care if the teams roles in this were reversed as we all hate the Roosters. I think that's the main reason people are carrying on about it being such a bad call too as we all wanted to see Roosters fail.

Well said

That has been my point the whole time. What in reality did the raiders miss out on? A 2nd kick. That is all.

 

[Tommy Smith]

Well said

That has been my point the whole time. What in reality did the raiders miss out on? A 2nd kick. That is all.

Exactly.

The Raiders had about 2/3rds of the ball in the 2nd half and we're supposed to believe that had they known it was the last tackle they'd have scored with their masterful kicker Jack Wighton conjuring up a miracle?

I mean really, that's why they were robbed and we were gifted an asterisk Premiership?

f**k off with that shit. That's epic butthurt.

 

[T-Boon]

Exactly.

The Raiders had about 2/3rds of the ball in the 2nd half and we're supposed to believe that had they known it was the last tackle they'd have scored with their masterful kicker Jack Wighton conjuring up a miracle?

I mean really, that's why they were robbed and we were gifted an asterisk Premiership?

f**k off with that shit. That's epic butthurt.

True, except the asterisk is for the salary cap stuff.

 

[Valheru]

True, except the asterisk is for the salary cap stuff.

What salary cap stuff?

 

[T-Boon]

What salary cap stuff?

Sure. Yup, yup.

 

[Game_Breaker]

Exactly.

The Raiders had about 2/3rds of the ball in the 2nd half and we're supposed to believe that had they known it was the last tackle they'd have scored with their masterful kicker Jack Wighton conjuring up a miracle?

I mean really, that's why they were robbed and we were gifted an asterisk Premiership?

f**k off with that shit. That's epic butthurt.

They were entitled to 6 tackles because the ref signalled it. Once he f**ked up and changed his call the Raiders should’ve been given the scrum feed
Those are the rules

No point in applying the shit rules when the ball hits a roosters trainer and then ignore the rules when the roosters don’t benefit from it

 

[ReddFelon]

Can't wait to see next year when refs can change calls midplay.

Ref1: It's a knock on...

Ref2: No it isn't, play on.

It already happens.

 

[Game_Breaker]

The fact is roosters won a premiership because the ref broke the rules

Not because of an incorrect call, because the ref broke the rules. There’s a massive difference

 

[some11]

The fact is roosters won a premiership because the ref broke the rules

Not because of an incorrect call, because the ref broke the rules. There’s a massive difference

A change mid-play raises eyebrows because we've never seen it before. It happens often after an infringement though or foul play. Or sometimes the pocket ref recommends a different call to the main ref.

But a main referee changing his mind mid-play is against the rules of the game as it stands.

For Cummins to deny he ever did it, an Annesley to back that up is symptomatic of where the game is at the moment.

 

[T-Boon]

I think if you take Tedesco out of this Roosters team it is probably only a top 4 team.

 

[Valheru]

They were entitled to 6 tackles because the ref signalled it. Once he f**ked up and changed his call the Raiders should’ve been given the scrum feed
Those are the rules

No point in applying the shit rules when the ball hits a roosters trainer and then ignore the rules when the roosters don’t benefit from it

Annersley explicitly stated that is an international rule, not an NRL interpretation.

Additionally the audio clearly shows Cummins asking if it was 6 again.

At the end of the day last tackle was the right decision. Just accept it.

 

[TheDalek079]

Haha so funny to see do many fans still butthurt over last week's grand final

 

[Tommy Smith]

I think if you take Tedesco out of this Roosters team it is probably only a top 4 team.

So you're assertion is that if you take the world's best player out of a team then that team isn't as good?

This is something entirely new and has never been the case before, i.e Johns & Knights, Locky & Broncos, JT & Cowboys, and so on.

Mind blown.

 

[Tommy Smith]

Annersley explicitly stated that is an international rule, not an NRL interpretation.

Additionally the audio clearly shows Cummins asking if it was 6 again.

At the end of the day last tackle was the right decision. Just accept it.

 

[mxlegend99]

The fact is roosters won a premiership because the ref broke the rules

Not because of an incorrect call, because the ref broke the rules. There’s a massive difference

That's not a fact at all.

Roosters did win the premiership. That is a fact.

The referee made mistakes during the game. That is a fact also... and about the only constant we can expect from our officials.

One did not cause the other though.

Raiders had a shitload of chances to win and unfortunately couldn't get it done. Not even against 12 men for 10 minutes. But apparently not getting an incorrect bonus 6 tackles is why they lost.

 

[Perth Red]

Annersley explicitly stated that is an international rule, not an NRL interpretation.

Additionally the audio clearly shows Cummins asking if it was 6 again.

At the end of the day last tackle was the right decision. Just accept it.

haha, screw it throw the rule book away then and let the refs do as they please.

 

[Vee]

Annersley explicitly stated that is an international rule, not an NRL interpretation.

I didn't hear him say that at all. I'm interested to know why the international rules allow a ref to change a decision on a suggestion from the 2nd ref when they only have one.

 

[Game_Breaker]

That's not a fact at all.

Roosters did win the premiership. That is a fact.

The referee made mistakes during the game. That is a fact also... and about the only constant we can expect from our officials.

One did not cause the other though.

Raiders had a shitload of chances to win and unfortunately couldn't get it done. Not even against 12 men for 10 minutes. But apparently not getting an incorrect bonus 6 tackles is why they lost.

It is a fact
The ref broke the rules which led to the roosters scoring a premiership winning try

“The Raiders had a shit load of chances” line is irrelevant
There’s no limit to amount of chances in a game.

 

[Someguy]

It already happens.

but that is usually it when Sam overruled a call, not refs changing their mind