Jump to content

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


Who will win?  

58 members have voted

  1. 1. Who will win?

    • Sydney Roosters
      31
    • Canberra Raiders
      27

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 06/10/19 at 08:30

Recommended Posts

1 hour 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.

He should have ignored it and stuck with his original call. You simply can't just change your call mid play when you have shaken your hands to the players 6 more tackles. As others have said, Wighton clearly didn't hear the change of call and why should he? 

Terrible way for an excellent, absorbing final to be decided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 384
  • Created
  • Last Reply
11 minutes ago, Dave T said:

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

I don't know about that. It is relatively uncommon for the ref's to get as mixed up as this... just unfortunate it was on the biggest stage.

Overall I would say the game in Australia is much better than the uk and predominantly because of the policing of the ruck and play the ball. Whether this is down to the two refs with one able to police the ruck or whether they just care more than we do is debatable but the two ref's probably helps.

I wouldn't throw out the system.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SilentAssassin said:

He should have ignored it and stuck with his original call. You simply can't just change your call mid play when you have shaken your hands to the players 6 more tackles. As others have said, Wighton clearly didn't hear the change of call and why should he? 

Terrible way for an excellent, absorbing final to be decided.

I agree with the first part but I think it is a real stretch to say it decided the game.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dunbar said:

I don't know about that. It is relatively uncommon for the ref's to get as mixed up as this... just unfortunate it was on the biggest stage.

Overall I would say the game in Australia is much better than the uk and predominantly because of the policing of the ruck and play the ball. Whether this is down to the two refs with one able to police the ruck or whether they just care more than we do is debatable but the two ref's probably helps.

I wouldn't throw out the system.

I've never been convinced and watching today, the ruck was messy, but they just didnt spend time focusing on it imo. There was a penalty given where the player intentionally put it onto the tackler in a way that would have seen it punished over here with the new interpretation halfway through the year. But the ref gave a penalty, the commentators didnt mention it and no replays were shown. They just cracked on.

I think our noisy crowds and media coverage have convinced us there is a problem with the ruck, which has led to is causing an problem with penalties. But they still have flops, dives, arm trapping etc. they just ignore it more imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dunbar said:

I agree with the first part but I think it is a real stretch to say it decided the game.

I really think it did. There only looked one winner at that point all the momentum with Canberra. Although i'm sure you are thinking the game breaking pass for the try that followed which i would agree was brilliant. But ultimately the simply shouldn't have been in that position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I agree with the first part but I think it is a real stretch to say it decided the game.

Agreed, it was a massive call and completely changed the flow, but Roosters still scored an outstanding try from distance, that wasnt on the ref.

I thought the sinbinning was a poor call, it's just a penalty, and the trainer incident was a real black mark on the game.

But sport is all about controversy, and Canberra lost because they couldn't score despite 2nd half dominance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dkw said:

Eh?

When play is irregularly affected, as it was here, the attacking team get the feed. In these situations the attacking team is deemed to be the team with territorial advantage i.e. the team closest to their opponents goal line. The incident occurred in Canberra's half so Roosters were deemed to be the attacking team.

Possession does not come into it. 

All above board, all correct. Just rotten luck for Canberra. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SilentAssassin said:

I really think it did. There only looked one winner at that point all the momentum with Canberra. Although i'm sure you are thinking the game breaking pass for the try that followed which i would agree was brilliant. But ultimately the simply shouldn't have been in that position.

I just think that the Roosters had so much to do in that set that the turnover call was just one part. They got the ball back in their 20. Who knows if Whighton had heard the call of last whether the Roosters would have ended up with possession in their own 20... they did for most of the Raiders attacking kicks.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DoubleD said:

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

You must understand that Russell Crowe has a pathological hatred for the Sydney Roosters, who are his own club,  the South Sydney Rabbitohs', neighbour and century old rival. He even has a "Book of Feuds"concerning the Eastern Suburbs team which he brings out and uses to motivate his players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, costa said:

When play is irregularly affected, as it was here, the attacking team get the feed. In these situations the attacking team is deemed to be the team with territorial advantage i.e. the team closest to their opponents goal line. The incident occurred in Canberra's half so Roosters were deemed to be the attacking team.

Possession does not come into it. 

All above board, all correct. Just rotten luck for Canberra. 

So if a team is on tackle 1 on there 49 yard line and something happens, the other team get the feed? Like I said, that's absurd. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canberra had 55% possession in the game and could only score one try. The Roosters with 45% possession and their star half back sin binned for ten minutes, scored two tries, the second being a brilliant and beautiful team effort. That is why the Roosters deserved to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Damien said:

Which needs to be changed.

What happened in the game was a freak. 

You could change it to possession determing the attacking team, but 99% of these incidents occur when a referee is hit by a kicked ball. So it would also be unfair to ask the defending team to defend another 6. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, costa said:

What happened in the game was a freak. 

You could change it to possession determing the attacking team, but 99% of these incidents occur when a referee is hit by a kicked ball. So it would also be unfair to ask the defending team to defend another 6. 

No I would simply change it to if it hits a water carrier then it's the other teams ball. Simple as that. It is entirely that teams fault and they do not deserve to be rewarded for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Damien said:

No I would simply change it to if it hits a water carrier then it's the other teams ball. Simple as that. It is entirely that teams fault and they do not deserve to be rewarded for it.

Trainers are entitled to be on the field if doing their job. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I just think that the Roosters had so much to do in that set that the turnover call was just one part. They got the ball back in their 20. Who knows if Whighton had heard the call of last whether the Roosters would have ended up with possession in their own 20... they did for most of the Raiders attacking kicks.

Canberra got a few repeat sets off kicks in the second half iirc. 

Roosters defence was exceptional though; i was surprised the Raiders didn't go for a one pointer from the 60 mins mark to when the try was scored as the Roosters looked out on their feet they should have got the one and backed their own defence which was also top notch all night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Cheadle Leyther said:

The first try by Roosters was only scored after an amazing decision to give Roosters the scrum after a Rsiders kick was charged down and then hit the Roosters kit man just as Whitrhead could have picked up and scored. Didn’t the same thing happen in the York v Fev game but that decision went the other way . Meanwhile not mentioned at all on channel 9

If you look at that incident and freeze the picture at the point the ball hits the trainer, both Whitehead and Tedesco are about the same distance from the ball. Do you really think Whitehead was going to beat Tedesco to the ball and then out sprint him 50 yards to score?

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Damien said:

Not linger and take absolutely no care to get out of the way. The game needs to start being far tougher with this on field coaching.

I disagree. He was 10m behind his own team and leaving the field. Rare for kicks to be charged down that far. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

If you look at that incident and freeze the picture at the point the ball hits the trainer, both Whitehead and Tedesco are about the same distance from the ball. Do you really think Whitehead was going to beat Tedesco to the ball and then out sprint him 50 yards to score?

Level but at least 10 metres further away to the left and the ball was going slightly the opposite way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I've never been convinced and watching today, the ruck was messy, but they just didnt spend time focusing on it imo. There was a penalty given where the player intentionally put it onto the tackler in a way that would have seen it punished over here with the new interpretation halfway through the year. But the ref gave a penalty, the commentators didnt mention it and no replays were shown. They just cracked on.

I think our noisy crowds and media coverage have convinced us there is a problem with the ruck, which has led to is causing an problem with penalties. But they still have flops, dives, arm trapping etc. they just ignore it more imho.

Agree to disagree on that one. I think the ruck in the NRL is far cleaner than over here.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Damien said:

Level but at least 10 metres further away to the left and the ball was going slightly the opposite way.

So you think that Whitehead would have scored?

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, costa said:

I disagree. He was 10m behind his own team and leaving the field. Rare for kicks to be charged down that far. 

Well I completely disagree with you. The trainer was on the field for no good reason and was loitering. As has become the norm. He was negligent and was a Roosters member of staff and it's absurd that they should benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Damien said:

Level but at least 10 metres further away to the left and the ball was going slightly the opposite way.

I think there's little doubt that Whitehead would have got to that ball first. Would he have outpaced the Roosters chase? Unlikely. Perhaps Whitehead of old, but i reckon he might have made 20-30 metres.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.