RIP NRL

[Reflector]

I'm just weighing up who will be the 2020 grand finalists.

Roosters?
Storm?
Both?

I just can't quite nail it. I just know it's gotta be one of them.

Nah, I reckon we'll get a fairytale GF with two teams looking to break long-running Premiership droughts that'll warm the hearts of all neutral fans-

So lock in Bulldogs v Broncos.

 

[LineBall]

View attachment 33571 maybe Annesley should learn the rules before defending the refs...

So going by that - the touch judges shouldn't be walking or running on the field of play at all. It shits me how they wander onto the field during general play more and more.

 

[LeagueXIII]

What about the first half call for the Roosters when the ball from a charge down hits THEIR trainer with no fullback in sight. Raiders would have scored or gone very close. But no Roosters get the advantage.

The problem with the refs is they want to follow the letter of the law on some rules and ignore/manage others...go back to one ref.

 

[Valheru]

Was a 50/50 call
Refs can’t change their mind after they already signalled 6 again. It’s literally against the rules

Raiders could’ve taken a field goal for all we know. Cummins robbed them of the opportunity

Trent Robbinson whinging about a correct sin binning doesn’t change that either

It was absolutely not a 50/50 call. It clearly his the Canberra player.

What everyone is saying is they find the idea of Canberra incorrectly being given 6 again in great attacking position preferable to the right call being made. Yes Canberra would have kicked if they had known, what happens with that kick is anyone's guess. Likely scenario is it is difused like most others were and we score the long range try anyways.

This is nothing more than roosters bashing. Had the shoe been on the other foot not one of you would have had an issue with the call.

Correct call was made. Move on.

 

[tri_colours]

Some people don't only whinge when they get it wrong they whinge when they get it right. Amazing

Enjoy that runners up prize fadders!

 

[Valheru]

What about the first half call for the Roosters when the ball from a charge down hits THEIR trainer with no fullback in sight. Raiders would have scored or gone very close. But no Roosters get the advantage.

The problem with the refs is they want to follow the letter of the law on some rules and ignore/manage others...go back to one ref.

This is a bigger issue than the correct last tackle call but to say they would have scored is ludicrous.

Not to mention the tackle on Keary warranted a penalty. No one cares about that though because it doesn't fit the narrative.

 

[Wildcard]

Anyone who didn't think the NRL would gift the rorters the cup is deluded.

 

[franklin2323]

It was the only call they got right in all honesty. Cronk took Pappali’s (spelling) arms out of play hence not giving him a fair chance to catch the ball

I have no issue with that call but how it came about was wrong bunker should have no say in stuff like that. Let them on field to call and leave bunker for try scoring

 

[big hit!]

This is a bigger issue than the correct last tackle call but to say they would have scored is ludicrous.

Not to mention the tackle on Keary warranted a penalty. No one cares about that though because it doesn't fit the narrative.

Soliola got the ball.

Sezer gets clipped high when Raiders has territory and attacking no penalty.

There are shit decisions in rugby league but last night CAnberra got dudded by decisions while play was live, both to Roosters great advantage.

In saying that, Game was lost/won when Cronk was off the field. BS one out play didn’t stretch Roosters at all. If Roosters had that advantage, Cronk and Keary would’ve killed the game then.

Differences in organisation were on display and that’s why Roosters won. A great team

 

[franklin2323]

It was absolutely not a 50/50 call. It clearly his the Canberra player.

What everyone is saying is they find the idea of Canberra incorrectly being given 6 again in great attacking position preferable to the right call being made. Yes Canberra would have kicked if they had known, what happens with that kick is anyone's guess. Likely scenario is it is difused like most others were and we score the long range try anyways.

This is nothing more than roosters bashing. Had the shoe been on the other foot not one of you would have had an issue with the call.

Correct call was made. Move on.

10 out. Maybe if the ref calls last Canberra slots a FG. Not the being right or wrong is the issue the fact a basic thing was gotten wrong in a cruical time in the most important game

 

[Lambretta]

Firstly I want to say that the game was of a very high quality with both defences keeping the score low.

It's a shame that the changed call incident is going to overshadow what was an extremely high quality game

I was at the game, so I didn't have the benefit of replay until this morning . I saw the referee signal 6 to go and thought "he got that wrong, no Rooster touched that". Then when we got the ball I thought I must have mistaken the "6 again" signal for "its still the 5th" and didn't think any more of it until after the game when people started talking about the change

Watching it this morning the referee changed the signal (which he shouldn't have done, even if he was correcting an error on the advice of the other official who had a better view) before the ball was passed to Wighton.

Wighton did have opportunity to see the referees call, but unfortunately for Canberra he missed it and he missed the opportunity to put through a kick.

At the turnover, which took quite a few moments, the Raiders were given time to set their defensive line. From that point the Roosters put on a brilliant set and scored a great Rugby League try.

Now, somecpeople want us to believe that that single decision by a referee is the sole reason why the Roosters beat the Raiders. That every single play the ball, every tackle, every run, every kick is somehow rendered irrelevant.

Yes an error was made, but you should be able to defend those errors.

When the Roosters went down to 12 men, we defended that. In the first 30 minutes of thecsecond half the Raiders had six complete sets of play the balls in the Roosters half compared to the Roosters 9 play the balls the Roosters had in attack. They didn't score off any of them.

When the Roosters were twice tackled in the field of play and then pushed back into the end goal, which is a penalty awarded usually, the Roosters had to kick line drop outs. No one is talking about those calls.

I get that the result isn't what most people wanted. Hell, even I, a die hard Roosters supporter, wouldn't have begrudged Canberra that win.

But to pretend the result was down to a single incident is as laughable as it is childish. As Rugby League supporters, we need to stop doing this.

It talks the game down and serves no purpose other than create animosity .

Maybe that's the reason people do it. They need to hate more than they need to admire

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

Post of the weekend for mine, Lambretta. Well played sir. C.C. medal goes to you.

 

[Mr Spock!]

It was absolutely not a 50/50 call. It clearly his the Canberra player.

What everyone is saying is they find the idea of Canberra incorrectly being given 6 again in great attacking position preferable to the right call being made. Yes Canberra would have kicked if they had known, what happens with that kick is anyone's guess. Likely scenario is it is difused like most others were and we score the long range try anyways.

This is nothing more than roosters bashing. Had the shoe been on the other foot not one of you would have had an issue with the call.

Correct call was made. Move on.

Yeah it was 50/50...

Thats why 2 refs made 2 different calls.

 

[Mr Spock!]

Firstly I want to say that the game was of a very high quality with both defences keeping the score low.

It's a shame that the changed call incident is going to overshadow what was an extremely high quality game

I was at the game, so I didn't have the benefit of replay until this morning . I saw the referee signal 6 to go and thought "he got that wrong, no Rooster touched that". Then when we got the ball I thought I must have mistaken the "6 again" signal for "its still the 5th" and didn't think any more of it until after the game when people started talking about the change

Watching it this morning the referee changed the signal (which he shouldn't have done, even if he was correcting an error on the advice of the other official who had a better view) before the ball was passed to Wighton.

Wighton did have opportunity to see the referees call, but unfortunately for Canberra he missed it and he missed the opportunity to put through a kick.

At the turnover, which took quite a few moments, the Raiders were given time to set their defensive line. From that point the Roosters put on a brilliant set and scored a great Rugby League try.

Now, somecpeople want us to believe that that single decision by a referee is the sole reason why the Roosters beat the Raiders. That every single play the ball, every tackle, every run, every kick is somehow rendered irrelevant.

Yes an error was made, but you should be able to defend those errors.

When the Roosters went down to 12 men, we defended that. In the first 30 minutes of thecsecond half the Raiders had six complete sets of play the balls in the Roosters half compared to the Roosters 9 play the balls the Roosters had in attack. They didn't score off any of them.

When the Roosters were twice tackled in the field of play and then pushed back into the end goal, which is a penalty awarded usually, the Roosters had to kick line drop outs. No one is talking about those calls.

I get that the result isn't what most people wanted. Hell, even I, a die hard Roosters supporter, wouldn't have begrudged Canberra that win.

But to pretend the result was down to a single incident is as laughable as it is childish. As Rugby League supporters, we need to stop doing this.

It talks the game down and serves no purpose other than create animosity .

Maybe that's the reason people do it. They need to hate more than they need to admire

Except roosters scored off a reffing error and by their trainer getting in the way.

 

[Mr Spock!]

And no one is talking about the other calls because the refs didn't change their mind midplay.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Lol, this love in where roosters fans are liking each other's posts.

 

[Lambretta]

Except roosters scored off a reffing error and by their trainer getting in the way.

No, we didn't score off a reffing error

The tries were scored subsequently.
The opposition had opportunity to prevent it happening
Errors occur, you have to be able to defend them.

This constant whinging about ones own weaknesses is a deflection

 

[Lambretta]

Lol, this love in where roosters fans are liking each other's posts.

True. But seeing as everyone other than Roosters fans wanted the Raiders to win, saying anything supporting the Roosters is hardly going to win me any popularity contest

 

[Lebbo73]

Decisions went both ways! The call didn’t cost the Raiders the match, the Roosters goal line defence was the difference.

I thought that the first controversial moment of the game was the most influential even if the six again and then not was the most disgraceful. The early call was probably a 12 point turnaround. It was always going to be hard to score points. Lack of momentum at the start can hurt you later on as well.

 

[BadnMean]

It was absolutely not a 50/50 call. It clearly his the Canberra player.

What everyone is saying is they find the idea of Canberra incorrectly being given 6 again in great attacking position preferable to the right call being made. Yes Canberra would have kicked if they had known, what happens with that kick is anyone's guess. Likely scenario is it is difused like most others were and we score the long range try anyways.

This is nothing more than roosters bashing. Had the shoe been on the other foot not one of you would have had an issue with the call.

Correct call was made. Move on.

This is a bigger issue than the correct last tackle call but to say they would have scored is ludicrous.

Not to mention the tackle on Keary warranted a penalty. No one cares about that though because it doesn't fit the narrative.

The issue is that we were all set up for an attacking play based of seeing the referee signal 6 again. Then suddenly we are asked to defend a set not only without warning (say, if we had dropped it through or own mistake) but literally a need to suddenly shift to defence camouflaged by a false referee signal. It's a totally different spread & position for a backline attacking move vs a defensive line. In the moments of confusion caused by the false signal & need to reorganise, Teddy & co are more than good enough to take advantage & set up the winning play.

All directly related to that call/non-call. It's not that we would have scored (maybe, maybe not, we'd certainly be in a position to put some good field position & keep applying the pressure). It's that Roosters wouldn't have scored without that call either. That's the whammy.