Sun 6 Oct: NRL Grand Final: Sydney Roosters v Canberra Raiders (Merged Threads)

[DoubleD]

Awful decision in the NRL Grand Final where one ref signalled a fresh set of six to Canberra, so they took the tackle, only for it to be overturned inexplicably by the other ref. 

 The 2 ref system has always been a bit of a joke and I know the NRL refs are generally of a lower standard than over here but clearly something like this was bound to happen at some stage with the 2 ref system, it’s a recipe for disaster. 

[Davo5]

6 minutes ago, rhinos78 said:

Shocking rule, not the refs fault they had to apply it, but couldnt believe the rule, spoilt the whole game for me. Potential 12 point swing, took a potential try scoring oppurtunity from Canberra and handed it to Easts, which they took. Stupid smile on the Easts trainer made it more infuriating. 

 I had no preference on who won, but the outcome of that play and stupid rule spoilt the game for me.

It is a rule that needs looked at but come on it happened in the 3rd minute and didn't directly result in a try spoiled the rest of an absorbing day,really !!

[Oliver Clothesoff]

The NRL refs are of a lower standard? 

[Rupert Prince]

22 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

Poor response there from someone who should know better. Nothing embarrassing about that great game, even if Roosters were somewhat fortuitous 

Shock horror Rabitohs fan is upset that jammy Roosters win GF.  Hardly a "poor" response rather, an expected one.

 

[Dunbar]

1 hour ago, dkw said:

I disagree, roosters hadn't got through the raiders out wide at all until then and hadn't even looked like they would, yet seconds after such a terrible mistake they are ragged and caught out. 

Just watched the passage of play after the 'six again' mix up.

First of all, there was loads of time between the hand over and the Roosters play the ball.

Then there were 4 hit ups by the Roosters... two of which were to their right. In fact Whitehead on the Raiders left edge made one of the tackles.

The Raiders right edge defence were all in place and numbered up, the break came through good execution from the Roosters with Lielua left on the ground after tackling Corder and Keary spotting the opportunity. 

There was 52 seconds in between Whighton being tackled for the turn over and Cordner playing the ball before the Roosters break.

Again. Yes, the mix up was bad from the ref's but I cannot attribute the Roosters try to it.

[rhinos78]

2 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

It is a rule that needs looked at but come on it happened in the 3rd minute and didn't directly result in a try spoiled the rest of an absorbing day,really !!

Yeah really, whats the daft emoji about? If it didnt spoil it for you, good for you, for me it did.

Unbelievable that Canberra get punished in that instance, after doing everything right. It handed Easts a try scoring oppurtunity, instead of, at best, defending down at the other end, or potentialy whitehead running a try in, they got an attacking scrum they didnt deserve and scored a couple of sets later. Big swing and massively unfair, Game spoiled for me.

[Lounge Room Lizard]

Said before the game that Cummins and Sutton should not be Reffing this game. Others like Checcin are far better and should be Reffing such games. Annesley has totally missed the whole point of why people are annoyed/angry. The decision maybe correct, but you cant make one decision and then during mid play just change it! But the whole Match Official/Bunker/Judiciary has been a joke this year and needs to be looked at in great detail in my opinion. Too many mistakes have been made and its also hard for people to understand some of the decisiions made and why.

Despite what happened with the refs, Canberra had enough time to sort the defence out. The winning try had nothing really to do with the decision(s) made. There was no overlap outwide. It was just poor communication and defending that saw Sezer come in on Mitchell even though Rapana was around his legs. Mitchell slipped the ball out to the unmarked Tupou. I think Sezer was at fault if anything for coming in. Canberra also failed to do much with the ball often, especially when Cronk was in the bin.

[Davo5]

3 minutes ago, rhinos78 said:

Yeah really, whats the daft emoji about? If it didnt spoil it for you, good for you, for me it did.

Unbelievable that Canberra get punished in that instance, after doing everything right. It handed Easts a try scoring oppurtunity, instead of, at best, defending down at the other end, or potentialy whitehead running a try in, they got an attacking scrum they didnt deserve and scored a couple of sets later. Big swing and massively unfair, Game spoiled for me.

Did those several contentious decisions Leeds got in some of their Grand Final wins spoil it for you ?

[Rupert Prince]

2 hours ago, LeytherRob said:

It was the correct decision but the rule needs a desperate overhaul. Not only would Whitehead likely broken downfield should it not have hit the trainer(potentially leading to a try), but the ricochet went to a raiders player too.

It's bad enough watching these "water carriers" coaching teams through a game like it's under 7's without them being able to directly advantage their team. If the rule stays as is, what is to stop teams just employing them to follow kicks and clean up any charge downs for repeat sets?

Water can be left at the touch line and if a player needs water then they can go and get it.  The alternative or in conjunction with this then move to 4 quarters.

There is no need for coaching etc  staff on the field during open play. I do not see the need or puropse for water carriers on the field during a cold wet Saturday night in Manchester.  

Generally all a player does is swill round water and then spit it out anyway.

[Dunbar]

3 minutes ago, rhinos78 said:

Yeah really, whats the daft emoji about? If it didnt spoil it for you, good for you, for me it did.

Unbelievable that Canberra get punished in that instance, after doing everything right. It handed Easts a try scoring oppurtunity, instead of, at best, defending down at the other end, or potentialy whitehead running a try in, they got an attacking scrum they didnt deserve and scored a couple of sets later. Big swing and massively unfair, Game spoiled for me.

Just watching that incident again. If you freeze frame on the high shot just as the ball hits the trainer the two players closest to the ball who would be chasing the charge down and equal distance away from it are Whitehead for the Raiders and Tedesco for the Roosters. Now I really like Whitehead but was he really going to beat Tedesco to that ball never mind travel 50 metres to score?

As for the try. The charge down was at 2.39 on the game clock and the first Roosters try was at 6.01. There is no way you can attribute the try to the decision.

[philipw]

38 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

Awful decision in the NRL Grand Final where one ref signalled a fresh set of six to Canberra, so they took the tackle, only for it to be overturned inexplicably by the other ref. 

 The 2 ref system has always been a bit of a joke and I know the NRL refs are generally of a lower standard than over here but clearly something like this was bound to happen at some stage with the 2 ref system, it’s a recipe for disaster. 

Or, if we stick to the facts, correctly overturned, seeing as it had come off the Canberra players shoulder. Therefore, they made the correct call. Additionally, the main ref called 'last tackle' at least three times, as far as I heard. 

[Davo5]

The NRL have refs worse than Hicks & Child,really ??

[rhinos78]

11 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

Did those several contentious decisions Leeds got in some of their Grand Final wins spoil it for you ?

My word, what a poor response.

[DoubleD]

1 minute ago, philipw said:

Or, if we stick to the facts, correctly overturned, seeing as it had come off the Canberra players shoulder. Therefore, they made the correct call. Additionally, the main ref called 'last tackle' at least three times, as far as I heard. 

It looked like it came off Tedesco’s shoulder to me but I haven’t seen the replay. Regardless, the point is one of the refs ruled back to 6 and was shouting it so it proves 2 refs are a mockery

[Rupert Prince]

3 minutes ago, Lounge Room Lizard said:

...

Despite what happened with the refs, Canberra had enough time to sort the defence out. The winning try had nothing really to do with the decision(s) made.

...

Every time a ref gives a bad call and hands play to a team, then that team is given an advantage and there is a opportunity. For certain the other team has 100% zero chance of an advantage. It cannot be simply assumed that it does not matter.

[philipw]

4 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

It looked like it came off Tedesco’s shoulder to me but I haven’t seen the replay. Regardless, the point is one of the refs ruled back to 6 and was shouting it so it proves 2 refs are a mockery

Well, no the point is that the correct decision  was made, based upon an extra set of eyes. 

[DoubleD]

3 minutes ago, philipw said:

Well, no the point is that the correct decision  was made, based upon an extra set of eyes. 

You’ve completely missed the point that Canberra were of the impression that it was back to 6 so played on as such. If there was only 1 ref that wouldn’t have happened. 2 refs just creates confusion 

[dkw]

9 minutes ago, philipw said:

Well, no the point is that the correct decision  was made, based upon an extra set of eyes. 

The raiders player saw a ref wipe the tackle count, he then made a decision to run the ball in based on getting another set of 6. The ref changed his call, the player was then tackled on last tackle. Surely you see whats wrong with that. 

[Davo5]

1 minute ago, DoubleD said:

You’ve completely missed the point that Canberra were of the impression that it was back to 6 so played on as such. If there was only 1 ref that wouldn’t have happened. 2 refs just creates confusion 

Except there isn't just 2 refs making decisions,you have the bunker chipping in as well now,that's why you have players deliberately staying down at the slightest hint of a high tackle and I won't even go to the rediculous Cronk sin bin.

[rhinos78]

21 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Just watching that incident again. If you freeze frame on the high shot just as the ball hits the trainer the two players closest to the ball who would be chasing the charge down and equal distance away from it are Whitehead for the Raiders and Tedesco for the Roosters. Now I really like Whitehead but was he really going to beat Tedesco to that ball never mind travel 50 metres to score?

As for the try. The charge down was at 2.39 on the game clock and the first Roosters try was at 6.01. There is no way you can attribute the try to the decision.

Ofcourse you can attribute the try to that rule, not decision, rule. Easts wouldnt of been anywhere near the try line if it wasnt for that rule and there trainer. They got an attacking scrum they shouldnt of got and scored a repeat set later, they should of been down the other end of the pitch defending. 

Was he going to best Tedesco, we'l never know for sure, the roosters trainer got in the way remember, but i think Whithead was getting there first, so did all the commentators who were there live.

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, rhinos78 said:

Ofcourse you can attribute the try to that rule, not decision, rule. Easts wouldnt of been anywhere near the try line if it wasnt for that rule and there trainer. They got an attacking scrum they shouldnt of got and scored a repeat set later, they should of been down the other end of the pitch defending. 

Was he going to best Tedesco, we'l never know for sure, the roosters trainer got in the way remember, but i think Whithead was getting there first, so did all the commentators who were there live.

As you say, we don't know whether Whitehead would have beaten Tedesco to the loose ball. If Tedesco had won the chase then the Roosters would have had a new set around the half way line due to the charge down.

There are far too may variables in play here to attribute that try (several minutes later) to that law.

I will agree the law is stupid and I think we should get trainers off the pitch when the game is in play.

[johnh1]

I’ve always thought it odd to have two refs as they can both see different things at the same time and give opposite decisions. If we are to have two officials on the field, which is a good idea, then only one of them should be the ref and have the whistle. The other, who is free to be anywhere on the field can then speak to the ref and advise him, just like the touchies do at the moment.

[philipw]

20 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

You’ve completely missed the point that Canberra were of the impression that it was back to 6 so played on as such. If there was only 1 ref that wouldn’t have happened. 2 refs just creates confusion 

As I said, the main ref called 'last tackle' at least three times, as far as I heard. Sir they sure shouldn't have been of that opinion. 

[philipw]

16 minutes ago, dkw said:

The raiders player saw a ref wipe the tackle count, he then made a decision to run the ball in based on getting another set of 6. The ref changed his call, the player was then tackled on last tackle. Surely you see whats wrong with that. 

The main ref called 'last tackle' at least three times, and changed his hand signal to 'last tackle' - what more is he expected to do? 

[Davo5]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

As you say, we don't know whether Whitehead would have beaten Tedesco to the loose ball. If Tedesco had won the chase then the Roosters would have had a new set around the half way line due to the charge down.

There are far too may variables in play here to attribute that try (several minutes later) to that law.

I will agree the law is stupid and I think we should get trainers off the pitch when the game is in play.

Is the rule wrong:Yes

Did it directly result in a try: No

Did it decide the game : No 

The Cronk sin bin and the Wighton 6 again decisions are in my opinion greater talking points.