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 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


  • Replies 385
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

So you think that Whitehead would have scored?

He may not have scored but at best he may. I'd be certain he'd have got to the ball and dived on it first though. 2nd best outcome would have been Canberra getting the ball a good 40 metres down the field. The worst possible option would have been Roosters getting the ball back deep in their own half and having to get out of their own half with the rest of the team out if position. All far more preferable from a Canberra perspective than what happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Damien said:

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.

What evidence do you have for that? How do you know he was on for no good reason? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Damien said:

He may not have scored but at best he may. I'd be certain he'd have got to the ball and dived on it first though. 2nd best outcome would have been Canberra getting the ball a good 40 metres down the field. The worst possible option would have been Roosters getting the ball back deep in their own half and having to get out of their own half with the rest of the team out if position. All far more preferable from a Canberra perspective than what happened.

You quoted me replying to someone saying "as Whitrhead could have picked up and scored."

I didn't say the incident didn't disadvantage Canberra, it clearly did. But there is no way he would have scored with a bouncing ball to collect, the fastest man on the field the closest to him and 50 metres left to the try line.

You said a couple of days ago that someone was just looking for an argument, it feels the same now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that left a sour taste in the mouth . How can a ref call six again then change his mind ? The players have got virtually no chance , and that indirectly led to the winning try . Still what can you expect with clown Sutton involved . That was $hit that was . I thought it was 6 again off Tedesco anyway but that process totally dudded the raiders . And yet again we saw another reason to get these blooming trainers off the pitch - utterly ridiculous and denied the raiders a chance and at least 6 tackles in prime position . And that trainer goes off laughing - NRL must sort that nonsense .

All in all I thought the Roosters were pretty underwhelming , almost as if they just expected it to happen , and only their amazing defence kept their head above water . The Raiders were the more lively team for long spells but just couldn’t make it stick . I was rooting for them , they did great and I’m a bit gutted they lost after that effort in a game that was there to be won - and in those circumstances . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

You quoted me replying to someone saying "as Whitrhead could have picked up and scored."

I didn't say the incident didn't disadvantage Canberra, it clearly did. But there is no way he would have scored with a bouncing ball to collect, the fastest man on the field the closest to him and 50 metres left to the try line.

You said a couple of days ago that someone was just looking for an argument, it feels the same now.

Pardon? I quoted you and pointed out that whilst level Whitehead was in fact much closer. You replied and I replied back, sorry if pointing out a fact is looking for an argument. 2 posts in reply is hardly doing that unless you expect to have free reign on this thread with no reply.

It is also absurd to say there is no way Whitehead could not have scored, no one knows that. He could well have. Just as we don't know if Papali would have scored of Cronk hadn't committed a professional foul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

Pardon? I quoted you and pointed out that whilst level Whitehead was in fact much closer. You replied and I replied back, sorry if pointing out a fact is looking for an argument. 2 posts in reply is hardly doing that unless you expect to have free reign on this thread with no reply.

It is also absurd to say there is no way Whitehead could not have scored, no one knows that. He could well have. Just as we don't know if Papali would have scored of Cronk hadn't committed a professional foul.

He couldn't have scored,play has to stop if the ball hits a trainer,the only argument should be who gets the ball,in this case the rules should be changed to the team who's trainer interferes with play should hand the ball over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, costa said:

What evidence do you have for that? How do you know he was on for no good reason? 

Have you never watched Rugby League?, if so you should know it's very common. From TV pictures he wasn't even close to any Roosters players and wasnt exactly rushing off the pitch. He was even on the pitch in the in goal at kick off. He was then on the main field area after 10 secs of the game and near the ruck after the 1st tackle for God's sake, what was the pressing need then? Why is he even on the pitch at kick off? I guess we'll just have to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

He couldn't have scored,play has to stop if the ball hits a trainer,the only argument should be who gets the ball,in this case the rules should be changed to the team who's trainer interferes with play should hand the ball over.

The debate is what would have happened if the trainer wasn't there. I certainly agree the rule should be changed to as you say and have said as much in other posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Damien said:

Pardon? I quoted you and pointed out that whilst level Whitehead was in fact much closer. You replied and I replied back, sorry if pointing out a fact is looking for an argument. 2 posts in reply is hardly doing that unless you expect to have free reign on this thread with no reply.

It is also absurd to say there is no way Whitehead could not have scored, no one knows that. He could well have. Just as we don't know if Papali would have scored of Cronk hadn't committed a professional foul.

Here is a screen shot at the time the ball hits the trainer. Whitehead is the closest Canberra player while Tedesco is just as close (if not a little closer) to the ball. You really think Whitehead was about to beat Tedesco to the ball and then out sprint him to score?

Screenshot_20191006-195939_Chrome.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

Here is a screen shot at the time the ball hits the trainer. Whitehead is the closest Canberra player while Tedesco is just as close (if not a little closer) to the ball. You reslly think Whitehead was about to beat Tedesco to the ball and then out sprint him to score?

Screenshot_20191006-195939_Chrome.jpg

The point is no one knows. I've certainly  seen Whitehead score from distance before and he is a pacy forward. He also is facing the ball and setting off where as Tedesco is turning. Whitehead may regather the ball and hand off Tedesco, Tedesco may mess up the tackle, a Canberra player may join in support and get a pass. There are a ton of variables in that situation which we see time and again on a Rugby field so I really don't see how anyone can say there is no way he'd have scored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point is he never got the chance due to an outside influence that shouldn’t be there . At the very least it denied the Raiders an attacking , and try  scoring opportunity . And it was a double whammy that they didn’t even get possession when the Roosters has played out their set and had kicked it . Unsatisfactory all round anyway whatever the nuances of opinion 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Damien said:

The point is no one knows. I've certainly  seen Whitehead score from distance before and he is a pacy forward. He also is facing the ball and setting off where as Tedesco is turning. Whitehead may regather the ball and hand off Tedesco, Tedesco may mess up the tackle, a Canberra player may join in support and get a pass. There are a ton of variables in that situation which we see time and again on a Rugby field so I really don't see how anyone can say there is no way he'd have scored.

If you read back you will see that the first post you quoted from me was in reaction to someone saying Whitehead could have picked up the ball and scored.

My whole point was that we would never have known if he would have scored and now that is what you are telling me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

If you read back you will see that the first post you quoted from me was in reaction to someone saying Whitehead could have picked up the ball and scored.

My whole point was that we would never have known if he would have scored and now that is what you are telling me!

You are one of the posters on here that I usually agree with and respect so I'm really not sure why you thought I was being argumentative and why you have taken such umbrage since I said although Whitehead was level he was actually closer. You then asked me a question which I answered honestly and then proceeded to tell me there is no way he would have scored, hence my reply.

Reading back I'm still none the wiser but am happy to leave it there as there's little more for me to add. I'd say I'm happy to agree to disagree but am not sure if we even are!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

You are one of the posters on here that I usually agree with and respect so I'm really not sure why you thought I was being argumentative and why you have taken such umbrage since I said although Whitehead was level he was actually closer. You then asked me a question which I answered honestly and then proceeded to tell me there is no way he would have scored, hence my reply.

Reading back I'm still none the wiser but am happy to leave it there as there's little more for me to add. I'd say I'm happy to agree to disagree but am not sure if we even are!

Yes, it does feel like we have constructed an argument out of nothing.

Apologies if i was being stroppy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours 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-/

This happened right in front of me. It was so noisy down there I couldn’t even hear my partner who was a 3 seats away from me. He saw the 6 again signal and played to that. The refs stuffed up the situation entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Copa said:

This happened right in front of me. It was so noisy down there I couldn’t even hear my partner who was a 3 seats away from me. He saw the 6 again signal and played to that. The refs stuffed up the situation entirely.

Yes, I agree. Funnily enough there was no real call of six again as such... it was more of a question to his colleague but he made the mistake of signalling six again which is what the players all saw and played to.

Doesn't matter how many times they screamed 'last' after that, the damage was done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours 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.

Thanks for that..

just confirmed it in the laws

Quote

Attacking Team is the team, which at the time has a territorial advantage. If a scrum is to be formed on the halfway line the team which last touched the ball before it went out of play is the attacking team

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Griff9of13 said:

We should never complain about the standard of our reffing in this country ever again after this.

Ganson Leeds/Bradford, TWICE in 2 minutes he did Bradford over with horrendous decisions!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours 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.

I would say it should be a penalty if a person from that teams personnel who should not be on the field interferes with play.  I was shocked that there is not such a law for this occurance or can be at the referee's discretion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TBone said:

Thanks for that..

just confirmed it in the laws

Attacking Team is the team, which at the time has a territorial advantage. If a scrum is to be formed on the halfway line the team which last touched the ball before it went out of play is the attacking team

There you go @Damien, just so your not confused anymore ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mattrhino said:

I would say it should be a penalty if a person from that teams personnel who should not be on the field interferes with play.  I was shocked that there is not such a law for this occurance or can be at the referee's discretion. 

I'd totally agree with that and it's an even better deterrent and a fairer outcome.

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...