Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!

2013 all over again?

Bearfax

Grizzly old fart
Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
5,276
Surely this is becoming more than just coincidence that Sydney City are gifted a grand final win through refereeing decisions. Once could be construed accidental, twice suggests something more sinister. The manner in which Sydney City is defended over salary cap issues, promoted by the media especially here in Sydney and seems to get an unfair advantage through ref 'mistakes' makes one seriously wonder what is going on. Sydney City and the Storm seem to consistently get the rub of the green. Something stinks in Denmark.
 

rifraff

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
2019 Tipping Competitor
Joined
Aug 4, 2013
Messages
1,449
Don't think so. Both of the big contentious decisions were the correct decisions. They were wrong, but they were also right. The Canberra tactics were way more to blame than ant referee
 

Bearfax

Grizzly old fart
Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
5,276
Don't think so. Both of the big contentious decisions were the correct decisions. They were wrong, but they were also right. The Canberra tactics were way more to blame than ant referee

Was just a feeling Rif. Actually the two decisions that were being discussed were technically as you say right as far as the rules. But too often these decisions go against the lesser powerful team.

The issue regarding hitting the trainer with the ball is one dumb rule and how its allowed again exemplifies the incompetence of the administrators. I know the argument would be that players would target the trainers, but then its up to the trainers to stay out of the play. At worst the team impeded should get the scrum. The other matter was very uncertain regarding whether the ball came off a Canberra player. But even if it did the ref called 6 to go and therefore the Canberra players were not given the opportunity if the call was changed to adjust their play for a 6th tackle call. At worst the game should have stopped and the Canberra side should have been allowed the last tackle again. Where is the common sense. The Cronk 10 minutes was perhaps harsh but that is the responsibility of the player to time his tackle and was the right decision.

What I'm getting at Rif is that these 50/50 calls seem too often to support teams like Melbourne and SC. Perhaps its knit picking, but one wonders whether the pressure not to do anything against these teams because of their influence on the game in general, causes refs to almost subconsciously lean towards these teams in decisions to avoid making a mistake against those in power who can determine your role in the game.

But as I said. Perhaps I'm pissing in the wind.
 

Mark from Brisbane

Living the dream
Premium Member
2019 Tipping Competitor
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
28,256
Was just a feeling Rif. Actually the two decisions that were being discussed were technically as you say right as far as the rules. But too often these decisions go against the lesser powerful team.

The issue regarding hitting the trainer with the ball is one dumb rule and how its allowed again exemplifies the incompetence of the administrators. I know the argument would be that players would target the trainers, but then its up to the trainers to stay out of the play. At worst the team impeded should get the scrum. The other matter was very uncertain regarding whether the ball came off a Canberra player. But even if it did the ref called 6 to go and therefore the Canberra players were not given the opportunity if the call was changed to adjust their play for a 6th tackle call. At worst the game should have stopped and the Canberra side should have been allowed the last tackle again. Where is the common sense. The Cronk 10 minutes was perhaps harsh but that is the responsibility of the player to time his tackle and was the right decision.

What I'm getting at Rif is that these 50/50 calls seem too often to support teams like Melbourne and SC. Perhaps its knit picking, but one wonders whether the pressure not to do anything against these teams because of their influence on the game in general, causes refs to almost subconsciously lean towards these teams in decisions to avoid making a mistake against those in power who can determine your role in the game.

But as I said. Perhaps I'm pissing in the wind.
As much as I use the corrupt word I’m not sure this is the case, inept perhaps or as you say favouritism towards teams that are “ influential “.

Note we also see this often by the MRC as well, inconsistent bordering on favouritism.
 

Eaglehauser

Die Hard
Joined
May 5, 2019
Messages
118
Was just a feeling Rif. Actually the two decisions that were being discussed were technically as you say right as far as the rules. But too often these decisions go against the lesser powerful team.

The issue regarding hitting the trainer with the ball is one dumb rule and how its allowed again exemplifies the incompetence of the administrators. I know the argument would be that players would target the trainers, but then its up to the trainers to stay out of the play. At worst the team impeded should get the scrum. The other matter was very uncertain regarding whether the ball came off a Canberra player. But even if it did the ref called 6 to go and therefore the Canberra players were not given the opportunity if the call was changed to adjust their play for a 6th tackle call. At worst the game should have stopped and the Canberra side should have been allowed the last tackle again. Where is the common sense. The Cronk 10 minutes was perhaps harsh but that is the responsibility of the player to time his tackle and was the right decision.

What I'm getting at Rif is that these 50/50 calls seem too often to support teams like Melbourne and SC. Perhaps its knit picking, but one wonders whether the pressure not to do anything against these teams because of their influence on the game in general, causes refs to almost subconsciously lean towards these teams in decisions to avoid making a mistake against those in power who can determine your role in the game.

But as I said. Perhaps I'm pissing in the wind.
The 6 again was initially the wrong call but they needed to live with the call rather than making a second call to correct it mid stream which is not fair to Canberra in this case. They actually tested the theory that 2 wrongs don’t make a right and it held true.
The wrong 6 again call people could have lived with considering it was close to touching the rorter player and it would have be seen as a close 50/50 call which they got marginally wrong - but the change of mind, now that was blatantly unfair.

One team was bound to be unhappy with the call but it should be the first error that they stick with once the signal was made.

Stopping the game would also have been the wrong call given this is never done when ball is in play, it would open up a bad precedent.

The ref had a choice to make of which team was going to suffer from the mistake, and as you say subconsciously leaned towards the perceived ‘less harder road of resistance’.
 

The Who

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
10,974
The NRL have allowed trainers to become a team's 14th player. Can you imagine the 12th man in cricket being on the field and barking the coach's instructions?
It is a good thing that this tactic occurred in the biggest match of the year because it may now shame the NRL into doing something.
Ditto the two refs. It has been a failure as many of us have stated for years.
So too has the video refs. It has ruined RL, cricket and now I see it is ruining rugby.
 

rifraff

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
2019 Tipping Competitor
Joined
Aug 4, 2013
Messages
1,449
The issue regarding hitting the trainer with the ball is one dumb rule and how its allowed again exemplifies the incompetence of the administrators.
I know man and I didn't want the roosters to win and when the ref said six to go it should have been. But I also think the Cronk sin binning was harsh. I don't think or want to believe the comp is rigged.
 

Eagle of London

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
2019 Tipping Competitor
Joined
Apr 29, 2016
Messages
881
Its BS but all the sides do it. Trainers should be limited to injuries only and once tended to must leave field by closest touch line asap including the in goals.
No water to players other than stops in play or player has to filter to sideline if needed.
 

Fluffy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2004
Messages
21,168
coincidental that when it happened they did not win the Clive Churchill medal in those years....nope, refs changed the game for the roosters both times.

another thing is usually when the refs make a howler they give the next couple of 50/50 calls to the team who copped it, this did not happen either.

The question is do the refs like playing golf? They may not, it could be only others, I am not sure.
 

Mark from Brisbane

Living the dream
Premium Member
2019 Tipping Competitor
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
28,256
coincidental that when it happened they did not win the Clive Churchill medal in those years....nope, refs changed the game for the roosters both times.

another thing is usually when the refs make a howler they give the next couple of 50/50 calls to the team who copped it, this did not happen either.

The question is do the refs like playing golf? They may not, it could be only others, I am not sure.
I think it’s more inept than corrupt.
 

Fluffy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2004
Messages
21,168
I think it’s more inept than corrupt.
I used to but it has feathers and goes quack so think it may be a duck.

just not sure what level and how much. It could be support by some CEO's or owners over certain things - we know their is a media inner circle which are required to follow the NRL rules which is a form or blackmail or corruption so runs are on the board.
 

Mark from Brisbane

Living the dream
Premium Member
2019 Tipping Competitor
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
28,256
I used to but it has feathers and goes quack so think it may be a duck.

just not sure what level and how much. It could be support by some CEO's or owners over certain things - we know their is a media inner circle which are required to follow the NRL rules which is a form or blackmail or corruption so runs are on the board.
Gambling is the biggest issue, gazillions made / lost as a result.

I’d be more worried about this.
 

Mr Manly 007

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2015
Messages
455
I’ve spoken to x- Roosters players and they admit they had “2 sets of books”.
Admittedly ,the players I know played in the 90’s & early 2000’s. They never get caught so why would they stop.
Plus the NRL aren’t trying to catch salary cap RORTS at Several clubs.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom