RIP NRL

[Pete Cash]

Again this goes back to the weird psychosis of roosters fans

We got a lucky call against Melbourne and we didn’t go trawling through the evidence to argue we were actually screwed. Roosters fans are such insecure weirdos they can’t even cop they got a bunch of breaks. The world is always out to hurt roosters fans *trophy cabinet collapses under the weight of their success*

 

[Cockosh]

Ok so you basically made up the definition and passed it off as the NRL's. Cool.

No I posted a cut and paste of RL rules where it clearly states dangerous tackles are not allowed. Why don’t you enlighten us on what they define dangerous or like your mate do you prefer deflecting because the question has stumped you? What do they mean by dangerous?

 

[nick87]

Being committed to a tackle is completely irrelevant.

No, it's not irrelevant, section 15 under player misconduct
https://www.nrl.com/siteassets/operations/documentation/arl-rules-book-2019.pdf

"If the player in possession has delayed kicking the ball until the tackler has commenced to dive, the tackler should not be penalised"

End of story. You're wrong. Move on.

And again, ill ask you for the 7th time.... Name one occasion where a player has been penalised for attacking the legs in a successful charge down... Just one.
Of all the charge downs in the last 5-10-15-100 years! Just find me one.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

Completely irrelevant as keary is ultimately put into a dangerous position which the rule clearly states is not allowed. Unless you are trying to argue it isn’t dangerous then a penalty should have been awarded.

It's a penalty 100%. Funny how the players such as Aaron Woods and Paul Gallen have said on radio that it should have been a penalty, but the paid lackey's don't bring it up. What happened to the muppets on here claiming Soliola was attempting a charge down?

 

[Cockosh]

No, it's not irrelevant, section 15 under player misconduct
https://www.nrl.com/siteassets/operations/documentation/arl-rules-book-2019.pdf

"If the player in possession has delayed kicking the ball until the tackler has commenced to dive, the tackler should not be penalised"

End of story. You're wrong. Move on.

And again, ill ask you for the 7th time.... Name one occasion where a player has been penalised for attacking the legs in a successful charge down... Just one.
Of all the charge downs in the last 5-10-15-100 years! Just find me one.

Most charge downs don’t result in impact with the kicker that results in the kicker being out in an obviously dangerous position which is clearly against the rules.

 

[nick87]

Most charge downs don’t result in impact with the kicker that results in the kicker being out in an obviously dangerous position which is clearly against the rules.

Most... but not all.. so there must be some successful charge downs out there where a penalty has been given for attacking the legs.

Ill wait here whilst you find them

(Spoiler: They dont exist, because every charge down is inherently a defender attacking the legs, and that is by definition a dangerous tackle... the rule is written specifically to legalise charge downs but to protect the kickers against late challenges... else every charge down where contact is made with a kicker would be an automatic penalty)

 

[Apey]

Again this goes back to the weird psychosis of roosters fans

We got a lucky call against Melbourne and we didn’t go trawling through the evidence to argue we were actually screwed. Roosters fans are such insecure weirdos they can’t even cop they got a bunch of breaks. The world is always out to hurt roosters fans *trophy cabinet collapses under the weight of their success*

They're struggling with the fact the focus is on the opposite team copping a raw deal, when it is in fact the Roosters that are always getting the raw deal. Haven't you seen their penalty stats? We have some of the biggest ref whingers on the forum in here trying to play this down haha.

 

[Cockosh]

Again this goes back to the weird psychosis of roosters fans

We got a lucky call against Melbourne and we didn’t go trawling through the evidence to argue we were actually screwed. Roosters fans are such insecure weirdos they can’t even cop they got a bunch of breaks. The world is always out to hurt roosters fans *trophy cabinet collapses under the weight of their success*

Nice attempt at twisting. We are simply here to provide some balance against the hysteria that somehow the raiders were robbed due to inept refereeing that we all agree on. Point is there were calls that equally went against the roosters. Coming into a RL forum to criticise people for debating the issue seems a bit odd. Isn’t that what a forum is for?

 

[Cockosh]

Most... but not all.. so there must be some successful charge downs out there where a penalty has been given for attacking the legs.

Ill wait here whilst you find them

(Spoiler: They dont exist, because every charge down is inherently a defender attacking the legs, and that is by definition a dangerous tackle... the rule is written specifically to legalise charge downs but to protect the kickers against late challenges... else every charge down where contact is made with a kicker would be an automatic penalty)

Charge downs aren’t inherently about attacking legs. They are not meant to collect the kicker when doing it. Hahahahaha. FMD

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Again, all of these examples that rooster fans are nitpicking about are not momentum swinging decisions.

The roosters were on the rack, Roosters life member Ben Cummins decision to reverse the six again took them off the rack.

MOMENTUM

 

[Pete Cash]

Nice attempt at twisting. We are simply here to provide some balance against the hysteria that somehow the raiders were robbed due to inept refereeing that we all agree on. Point is there were calls that equally went against the roosters. Coming into a RL forum to criticise people for debating the issue seems a bit odd. Isn’t that what a forum is for?

If it went against you guys I’d not be in here crying that the world is against the raiders

The difference being of course we have the freakish never happens before stuff happen to us and you guys lost a couple of 50/50 calls that the raiders will no doubt be on the wrong end of at various points next year

No doubt you guys are going to end up kicking a match winning field goal against us next year on a 50/50 6 to go call that is later shown not to have touched a raider

 

[Cockosh]

They're struggling with the fact the focus is on the opposite team copping a raw deal, when it is in fact the Roosters that are always getting the raw deal. Haven't you seen their penalty stats? We have some of the biggest ref whingers on the forum in here trying to play this down haha.

Thanks for acknowledging the penalty stats. I

 

[Cockosh]

If it went against you guys I’d not be in here crying that the world is against the raiders

The difference being of course we have the freakish never happens before stuff happen to us and you guys lost a couple of 50/50 calls that the raiders will no doubt be on the wrong end of at various points next year

No doubt you guys are going to end up kicking a match winning field goal against us next year on a 50/50 6 to go call that is later shown not to have touched a raider

Couldn’t agree more on the freakish. Cummins is a disgrace. Should never ref nrl again.

 

[nick87]

Charge downs aren’t inherently about attacking legs. They are not meant to collect the kicker when doing it. Hahahahaha. FMD

You're attacking a football that is being kicked by a foot.... which is part of the legs. That's what your attacking.

They arent meant or not meant to do anything but get the football. Sia got the football. As per the rule quoted above, he was committed before the ball was kicked and a penalty is not warranted in those circumstances.

There was two officials looking directly at this, the ball hits the trainer... do you think if they could get out of that shit show by just saying "hey guys, it doesnt matter, its a penalty anyways" they wouldnt have taken it? Shit they'd have erred on the side of that over some trainer fiasco.

But there was no justification for a penalty, because it wasnt a penalty. Neither official even considered it, Sia was charged for it, the rules clearly state it wasnt a penalty... it's really just you and select few others who clearly dont know the rules who are saying it was a penalty.

Edit: I trust you've found that successful charge down that was penalised now?
Or no?

 

[Cockosh]

Again, all of these examples that rooster fans are nitpicking about are not momentum swinging decisions.

The roosters were on the rack, Roosters life member Ben Cummins decision to reverse the six again took them off the rack.

MOMENTUM

FMD. You had momentum for the 40 minutes preceding the call and did jack shit with it. And the wrong calls against us weren’t momentum swinging decisions. The penalty for the strip against sst was the set before Cronk gets binned. Instead of attacking your line from 40 out we end up a player short.

 

[bileduct]

Hahaha. By you. Hahahaha. The bloke that can’t answer a simple yes or no.

You seem a bit simple, mate. It was explained to you why it wasn't dangerous contact, and it was accompanied by the fact that none of the on field officials found it to be dangerous contact, nor did the video ref and match review committee. I think the match review committee is more of an authority than Ray Hadley, mate.

This sent you into a mental breakdown where you kept asking a question that had already been answered for you.

 

[bileduct]

It's a penalty 100%. Funny how the players such as Aaron Woods and Paul Gallen

Players prove week in and week out that they have no understanding of the rules, especially in the commentary box. They are no more reliable than your other pals Graeme Hughes and Ray Hadley.

 

[nick87]

Lol.
Paul Gallen and Aaron Woods

I stand corrected, if those two Rhodes Scholars said it was a penalty, well i guess that's that.

Still, dont mean to be a pain in the arse... but can i get one example where a penalty is blown for a successful charge down?
Just one?

 

[Pete Cash]

Literally every week we get a penalty inside the attacking ten and one of our brain geniuses tries to take a quick tap

 

[bileduct]

Literally every week we get a penalty inside the attacking ten and one of our brain geniuses tries to take a quick tap

Or elsewhere on the field they do it with one of our blokes standing immediately in front of them.