RIP NRL

[Valheru]

there’s a reason why he lied and denied signalling 6 again

I’ll let figure out why

Who cares.

We are talking about the rules.

The rules don't state that incident is a mutual infringement.

Do you refute that?

 

[AlwaysGreen]

BOOM! *mike drop*

Welcome to 2016

 

[carcharias]

Welcome to 2016

The year of the Gallen

 

[Game_Breaker]

Who cares.

We are talking about the rules.

The rules don't state that incident is a mutual infringement.

Do you refute that?

The rules don’t specify what is a mutual infringement, so not sure what your point is
You just have to be disingenuous to claim it had no effect

 

[carcharias]

The rules don’t specify what is a mutual infringement, so not sure what your point is
You just have to be disingenuous to claim it had no effect

Just out of curiosity
What do you think should’ve happened?

Should the raiders have got an unearned 6 again (because that was the initial refs call) regardless of the second call?

Should the ref have stuck to the original wrong call ?

Should the bunker have stepped in after the fact?

Were the raiders robbed?

if the raiders scored off the wrong 6 again call would the roosters have been the ones to be robbed?

do you just hate the roosters?

 

[Game_Breaker]

Just out of curiosity
What do you think should’ve happened?

Should the raiders have got an unearned 6 again (because that was the initial refs call) regardless of the second call?

Should the ref have stuck to the original wrong call ?

Should the bunker have stepped in after the fact?

Were the raiders robbed?

if the raiders scored off the wrong 6 again call would the roosters have been the ones to be robbed?

do you just hate the roosters?

Stick to the original call, as per the rules

was a 50/50 call anyway and I can’t rule out Tedesco didn’t touch it

 

[Legion]

No you can’t however this one was the kind of line ball call that gets let go every game. Debatable whether it should have even been a penalty. Definitely not a sin bin.

Had Papali caught the ball, then one could say that it was a "line ball call".
But he didn't because Cronk grabbed him by the arms, denying him any chance of catching the ball close to the line.

Definite professional foul.

 

[Legion]

Cant see into the future mate but we would have put on a better play if we had known it was the last tackle.

And that's exactly what the player with the ball said. He would've kicked for a try or tackle Easts in-goal to get the ball back.

They constantly tell us that a ruling can't be reversed. [It's why we need one ref & make the linesman do their bloody jobs. Hint to linesman; you have a flag. Learn to use it]]
If I was a Canberra supporter I'd be spewing. As a spectator, to what was up to then a good game, it spoilt it for me.

Initially I was going for Easts [simply because they're a Sydney team] but after that I was hoping the Raiders would pull off a hail Mary.

 

[Legion]

His initial call was wrong. Leaving that aside, what would you have proposed he had done once he ruled 6 again?

If Raiders had gone through and kicked a repeat set we would still also be in uproar.

I'm not sure about the changing decisions, and I'm not sure what the NRL rules allow in such a case - my personal view is that if a referee realises the wrong call has been made, surely it would be fine to rectify it immediately. I've seen it happen in footy games I've played.

Although Canberra would have lost momentum & allowed Easts to reset their line, if the ref changed the decision immediately, the only fair thing to have done is to take it back & replay the 5th tackle.

 

[Sonny83]

Welcome to 2016

2020 is round the corner. Move on mate

 

[carcharias]

Stick to the original call, as per the rules

was a 50/50 call anyway and I can’t rule out Tedesco didn’t touch it

If he’d stuck to the 6 again error and the raiders scored would that have been better or worse?

 

[Canard]

If he’d stuck to the 6 again error and the raiders scored would that have been better or worse?

It would have been keeping with the way the game has been refereed since 1908, so better.

 

[firechild]

If he’d stuck to the 6 again error and the raiders scored would that have been better or worse?

That happens all the time. 2 players contest a ball and occasionally the refs calls it the wrong way. We accept the ref making a call on a live 50/50 play and move on with minimal fuss. I'm not sure how you can't see that this is a significantly different situation. I wasn't really going for either team as I didn't mind either winning so I just wanted to see a good contest. It mostly was but a couple of incidents made it frustrating to watch so it was memorable for all the wrong reasons.

 

[Valheru]

The rules don’t specify what is a mutual infringement, so not sure what your point is
You just have to be disingenuous to claim it had no effect

That is my point.

You are claiming Cummins should have called a scrum due to the mutual infringement law. Clearly he was under obligation to do so, as per the rules.

 

[carcharias]

That happens all the time. 2 players contest a ball and occasionally the refs calls it the wrong way. We accept the ref making a call on a live 50/50 play and move on with minimal fuss. I'm not sure how you can't see that this is a significantly different situation. I wasn't really going for either team as I didn't mind either winning so I just wanted to see a good contest. It mostly was but a couple of incidents made it frustrating to watch so it was memorable for all the wrong reasons.

we all know the ref stuffed up.
Let’s be absolutely honest though
This was not the reason why the roosters won.
That’s what old mate is trying to claim.

 

[franklin2323]

That happens all the time. 2 players contest a ball and occasionally the refs calls it the wrong way. We accept the ref making a call on a live 50/50 play and move on with minimal fuss. I'm not sure how you can't see that this is a significantly different situation. I wasn't really going for either team as I didn't mind either winning so I just wanted to see a good contest. It mostly was but a couple of incidents made it frustrating to watch so it was memorable for all the wrong reasons.

Pretty much this. You often see these examples go to the bunker as try an overturned

 

[T-Boon]

Welcome to 2016

Yep, mike repair men had a great year in 16.

 

[Game_Breaker]

If he’d stuck to the 6 again error and the raiders scored would that have been better or worse?

Definitely better
A 50/50 call like that happens every match

That is my point.

You are claiming Cummins should have called a scrum due to the mutual infringement law. Clearly he was under obligation to do so, as per the rules.

It a moot point because we didn’t even get there since Cummins lied and said he didn’t signal 6 again

 

[Valheru]

Definitely better
A 50/50 call like that happens every match




It a moot point because we didn’t even get there since Cummins lied and said he didn’t signal 6 again

Exactly

So either Cummins didn't call 6 again and turnover right decision or he did call 6 again and turn over right decision as per the rules.

 

[carcharias]

Definitely better
A 50/50 call like that happens every match

Refs f**k up every game too.

So does the bunker

games are won and lost off the back of ref errors.

luckily the grand final wasn’t one of them.