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

[Sports Prophet]

1 hour ago, TBone said:

The initial farce surrounding the ball hitting a (Rooster's) trainer exiting the field.... the call is that Roosters were the attacking side so the law says they get the ball. However, another interpretation might be that Raiders actually 'charged down the ball' (it hit Soliola's [sp?] head, so no knock on) before it struck the trainer therefore Raiders were the attacking team.

1 hour ago, DoubleD said:

Yeah I think it could've been argued that Canberra were the attacking team in that scenario

 

There is never dispute or argument over who the attacking team is. It is the team with the greater territorial advantage. It has nothing to do with possession.

[Dave T]

45 minutes ago, philipw said:

Watch the video below

https://wwos.nine.com.au/nrl/nrl-grand-final-roosters-score-controversial-grand-final-win-over-raiders/8c0a8cc6-762f-4bd7-a196-3bba5e046c24

Ref changes the call to 'last' at 14 secs in - Wightin doesn't even receive the ball until 17 seconds in. 

Players dont check twice for a signal. Once they have said six to go why would you even look at the ref again that play?

[Dave T]

11 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

There is never dispute or argument over who the attacking team is. It is the team with the greater territorial advantage. It has nothing to do with possession.

Making that the rule is one of the dumbest decisions in the game. It doesn't make sense in the slightest. Not a hot of sense. 

[dkw]

12 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

There is never dispute or argument over who the attacking team is. It is the team with the greater territorial advantage. It has nothing to do with possession.

Eh?

[philipw]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

Players dont check twice for a signal. Once they have said six to go why would you even look at the ref again that play?

Given he is a half back, he needs to be aware if things going on around him. As I said, it wasn't just the signal - the ref called 'last' an number of times. The call was changed even before he got the ball. I dont disagree that it would have had an impact on his decision making, but however you look at it, it was the right call. 

[dkw]

Just now, Dave T said:

Making that the rule is one of the dumbest decisions in the game. It doesn't make sense in the slightest. Not a hot of sense. 

Do if you have the ball on your own half by 1 yard your not classed as the attacking team? Is that the rule? Thats absurd. 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, philipw said:

Given he is a half back, he needs to be aware if things going on around him. As I said, it wasn't just the signal - the ref called 'last' an number of times. The call was changed even before he got the ball. I dont disagree that it would have had an impact on his decision making, but however you look at it, it was the right call. 

Nobody is saying wrong call, you are arguing a technicality that others arent. The mistake was the ref telling Canberrq they had another 6 so they didnt kick. Ut happened, it was there in HD. 

That is the error. It was a shocker of an error that had a big impact.

 

[Dunbar]

Not sure if anyone has posted it yet but here is the six again incident with just the referee audio. 

https://www.nrl.com/news/2019/10/06/referees-only-audio-of-the-six-again-no-call-/

[philipw]

18 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Nobody is saying wrong call, you are arguing a technicality that others arent. The mistake was the ref telling Canberrq they had another 6 so they didnt kick. Ut happened, it was there in HD. 

That is the error. It was a shocker of an error that had a big impact.

 

No, I am arguing that the change in call was made even before Wighton received the ball - he had the opportunity to kick or pass as necessary

[DoubleD]

15 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Not sure if anyone has posted it yet but here is the six again incident with just the referee audio. 

https://www.nrl.com/news/2019/10/06/referees-only-audio-of-the-six-again-no-call-/

It's kind of irrelevant as I doubt the players can hear that amongst all the crowd noise

[DoubleD]

3 minutes ago, philipw said:

No, I am arguing that the change in call was made even before Wighton received the ball - he had the opportunity to kick or pass as necessary

Either you are a die hard Roosters fan or this is some epic trolling.

So you think Wighton ran that ball in, knowing it was last tackle? That's hilarious

[philipw]

14 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Not sure if anyone has posted it yet but here is the six again incident with just the referee audio. 

https://www.nrl.com/news/2019/10/06/referees-only-audio-of-the-six-again-no-call-/

Five times he cals 'last tackle' or 'still last' - its easy to blame the refs, and yes, the initial call of 'six to go' was incorrect, but players have to be aware of what is going on around them. It is 8 seconds from his initial call of 'last' to Within being tackled - that's on him. 

[Dunbar]

It was a mix up by the ref's.

But it does beg the question, what did everyone want the ref to do when he was told by his colleague that it was still last tackle.

Should he have stuck with his original decision even after being told it was wrong?

This is a genuine question as I really don't know what the ref should have done after originally signalling six again and then being told it wasn't.

[Mattrhino]

What a cruel game for the raiders they were totally dominent but fair play to the roosters the clung on for dear life and kept themselves in it to steal a win. 

[philipw]

11 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

It was a mix up by the ref's.

But it does beg the question, what did everyone want the ref to do when he was told by his colleague that it was still last tackle.

Should he have stuck with his original decision even after being told it was wrong?

This is a genuine question as I really don't know what the ref should have done after originally signalling six again and then being told it wasn't.

Exactly - imagine if he'd been informed it shook due last tackle, ignored it and called play on. Canberra then score on the next play.....

[philipw]

18 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

Either you are a die hard Roosters fan or this is some epic trolling.

So you think Wighton ran that ball in, knowing it was last tackle? That's hilarious

No, neither accusation applies; I actually wanted Canberra to win. I dont think he ran it in knowing it was the last tackle, but he DOES need to be more aware of what is happening around him - 

[Mattrhino]

This really should spell the end of trainers being allowed to roam the pitch willy nilly. For the trainer to interfere with the game on its biggest stage is embarrassing for the sport. 

[dkw]

28 minutes ago, philipw said:

Five times he cals 'last tackle' or 'still last' - its easy to blame the refs, and yes, the initial call of 'six to go' was incorrect, but players have to be aware of what is going on around them. It is 8 seconds from his initial call of 'last' to Within being tackled - that's on him. 

Players will see or hear 6 to go and that's it as rightly they dont expect a ref to change his decision. They don't really have time to then keep checking both refs all the time as they are playing rugby. 

[Dave T]

34 minutes ago, philipw said:

No, I am arguing that the change in call was made even before Wighton received the ball - he had the opportunity to kick or pass as necessary

How many times does a player need to check with a ref? Once you have had the signal, great it is play on and you are playing your game.

This kind of thing really should be like when the ref blows the whistle accidentally, as Canberra would have had the scrum I believe.

[DoubleD]

8 minutes ago, philipw said:

No, neither accusation applies; I actually wanted Canberra to win. I dont think he ran it in knowing it was the last tackle, but he DOES need to be more aware of what is happening around him - 

So if you don't think he ran it in knowing it was last tackle, he clearly thought it was last tackle, based on what 1 of the refs advised. A ref cannot suddenly change his decision mid play

This in itself shows the issue with the 2 ref system. Just one of a number of f ups this season, which the bunker have also contributed to

[Dave T]

10 minutes ago, Mattrhino said:

This really should spell the end of trainers being allowed to roam the pitch willy nilly. For the trainer to interfere with the game on its biggest stage is embarrassing for the sport. 

I agree. I'm not sure how we have got to the stage where top level RL has taken an idea from u7's RL and allowed coaches on the field.

That was an absolute shocker.

[Dave T]

29 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

It was a mix up by the ref's.

But it does beg the question, what did everyone want the ref to do when he was told by his colleague that it was still last tackle.

Should he have stuck with his original decision even after being told it was wrong?

This is a genuine question as I really don't know what the ref should have done after originally signalling six again and then being told it wasn't.

Within the current rules yes, I think you (the refs) have to suck it up and go with the decision you have outwardly communicated to the players, who have then done something off the back of your comms.

Once you have made the decision and affected play it is impossible to change that in live play. You have made your decision.

[philipw]

6 minutes ago, dkw said:

Players will see or hear 6 to go and that's it as rightly they dont expect a ref to change his decision. They don't really have time to then keep checking both refs all the time as they are playing rugby. 

So they dont take notice of the ref's calls in-play? Ok then. Given there is audio of the ref telling them its the last tackle FIVE times after the initial incorrect call, then, as I said, its on the player in my opinion

[Dunbar]

15 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Within the current rules yes, I think you (the refs) have to suck it up and go with the decision you have outwardly communicated to the players, who have then done something off the back of your comms.

Once you have made the decision and affected play it is impossible to change that in live play. You have made your decision.

Yes, I think that is probably right.

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Yes, I think that is probably right.

But ultimately, it is another example of where 2 refs are not improving the game.