2020 Finals discussion thread

[Mark from Brisbane]

Glad this season is done and dusted. I wanted Penrith to win, but just didn't see it happening..
Had my punters club money on vunavalu scoring a try paying $2.20 so his try was the highlight for me..
The way this corona thing seems to be lingering around im worried the asterix cup will be contested again next year...

There will be a 3rd wave , next winter , almost guaranteed.

 

[Bearfax]

Was there a Rugby League comp this year. Quite frankly I barely noticed.

 

[court83]

There will be a 3rd wave , next winter , almost guaranteed.

Yup.. absolutely.. this is gonna go well into next year.. and if international travel isn't open i can't see the warriors wanting to come to Australia in march and sit around til September away from their family's again...

 

[The Who]

Again I ask:
Has video technology improved the sport?
For me it has only made RL more confusing and prone to controversy.
Why is there only an investigation when a try/no try is scored?
Had the incident that led to the 'penalty try' happened anywhere else on the field it wouldn't have rated a second look. Ditto for the 'Riff's kick-shepherd try.
I think the sport is poorer for the introduction of the Bunker. It creates stop-start play, the opportunity for argument over technicalities, and for blatant cheating when a defensive player often feigns interference when they misread a situation.
The Bunker is also costly to operate. It was introduced to provide 'certainty' to rulings, but as we've seen in every match when there is human involvement this is not possible.
So, what is the difference between a referee making a decision and someone in the Bunker making a decision? Both will make mistakes.

 

[HoldenV8]

Again I ask:
Has video technology improved the sport?
For me it has only made RL more confusing and prone to controversy.
Why is there only an investigation when a try/no try is scored?
Had the incident that led to the 'penalty try' happened anywhere else on the field it wouldn't have rated a second look. Ditto for the 'Riff's kick-shepherd try.
I think the sport is poorer for the introduction of the Bunker. It creates stop-start play, the opportunity for argument over technicalities, and for blatant cheating when a defensive player often feigns interference when they misread a situation.
The Bunker is also costly to operate. It was introduced to provide 'certainty' to rulings, but as we've seen in every match when there is human involvement this is not possible.
So, what is the difference between a referee making a decision and someone in the Bunker making a decision? Both will make mistakes.

I have two main gripes with The Bunker.

First and foremost, its not allowed to be used properly. Seriously, so many games could have ended differently, including a few of ours, if they were allowed to judge on forward passes. They can make a judgment call on onside or offside from a camera angle 20-30-40 metres behind the play and on an angle, but even with a camera directly in line at times, they can't judge on a pass that has obviously been thrown forward out of the hands and has not just floated forward.

For mine, the technology is there but there is only a half arsed approach to using it. Either go all in or get rid of it altogether. Don't just have it for some things and not others.

Then there is the human side, and Penrith's first try last night was a classic example. Anyone who knows anything about rugby league knows that it was an obstruction and should have been ruled a no-try. Yet Steve Chiddy cleared that despite the video evidence right in front of his eyes, leading to a try. If that was ruled as obstruction like it should have been, Penrith don't score and I doubt the comeback happens. It would have deflated them big time knowing it was an opportunity lost. The point is that last night was just another in the LONG list of bunker officials either getting things completely wrong, or just outright ignoring the evidence in front of them, often depending on the situation of the game at the time. Yet no matter how much bunker officials like Horsehead, Chiddy, Steve Clark and Ashley Klein get things wrong over and over and over, no matter how many Monday mornings Graham Annesley has to come out and apologise for the bunker once more getting something majorly wrong that cost a team a win or a chance to win, they are back in the bunker the next week like nothings happened.

Human error happens. No one is perfect. But when the same people make the same mistakes time and time again despite having all the technology available to them that will give them the right answers, then maybe those same people aren't the right people for the job.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Yup.. absolutely.. this is gonna go well into next year.. and if international travel isn't open i can't see the warriors wanting to come to Australia in march and sit around til September away from their family's again...

Despite being retired from the industry I still have a few connections there.

NZ and Australia will open a bubble ( they both need it ), we just have to wait until these elections are over because people LOVE border lockouts.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

I have two main gripes with The Bunker.

First and foremost, its not allowed to be used properly. Seriously, so many games could have ended differently, including a few of ours, if they were allowed to judge on forward passes. They can make a judgment call on onside or offside from a camera angle 20-30-40 metres behind the play and on an angle, but even with a camera directly in line at times, they can't judge on a pass that has obviously been thrown forward out of the hands and has not just floated forward.

For mine, the technology is there but there is only a half arsed approach to using it. Either go all in or get rid of it altogether. Don't just have it for some things and not others.

Then there is the human side, and Penrith's first try last night was a classic example. Anyone who knows anything about rugby league knows that it was an obstruction and should have been ruled a no-try. Yet Steve Chiddy cleared that despite the video evidence right in front of his eyes, leading to a try. If that was ruled as obstruction like it should have been, Penrith don't score and I doubt the comeback happens. It would have deflated them big time knowing it was an opportunity lost. The point is that last night was just another in the LONG list of bunker officials either getting things completely wrong, or just outright ignoring the evidence in front of them, often depending on the situation of the game at the time. Yet no matter how much bunker officials like Horsehead, Chiddy, Steve Clark and Ashley Klein get things wrong over and over and over, no matter how many Monday mornings Graham Annesley has to come out and apologise for the bunker once more getting something majorly wrong that cost a team a win or a chance to win, they are back in the bunker the next week like nothings happened.

Human error happens. No one is perfect. But when the same people make the same mistakes time and time again despite having all the technology available to them that will give them the right answers, then maybe those same people aren't the right people for the job.

Maybe we should introduce a “ wheel of fortune “ every time there’s a try they spin it and where ever it lands is the result , bingo “ penalty try” , bingo “ penalty to the defensive side “ , may as well and would cost HEAPS LESS.

 

[danny-boy]

I have two main gripes with The Bunker.

First and foremost, its not allowed to be used properly. Seriously, so many games could have ended differently, including a few of ours, if they were allowed to judge on forward passes. They can make a judgment call on onside or offside from a camera angle 20-30-40 metres behind the play and on an angle, but even with a camera directly in line at times, they can't judge on a pass that has obviously been thrown forward out of the hands and has not just floated forward.

For mine, the technology is there but there is only a half arsed approach to using it. Either go all in or get rid of it altogether. Don't just have it for some things and not others.

Then there is the human side, and Penrith's first try last night was a classic example. Anyone who knows anything about rugby league knows that it was an obstruction and should have been ruled a no-try. Yet Steve Chiddy cleared that despite the video evidence right in front of his eyes, leading to a try. If that was ruled as obstruction like it should have been, Penrith don't score and I doubt the comeback happens. It would have deflated them big time knowing it was an opportunity lost. The point is that last night was just another in the LONG list of bunker officials either getting things completely wrong, or just outright ignoring the evidence in front of them, often depending on the situation of the game at the time. Yet no matter how much bunker officials like Horsehead, Chiddy, Steve Clark and Ashley Klein get things wrong over and over and over, no matter how many Monday mornings Graham Annesley has to come out and apologise for the bunker once more getting something majorly wrong that cost a team a win or a chance to win, they are back in the bunker the next week like nothings happened.

Human error happens. No one is perfect. But when the same people make the same mistakes time and time again despite having all the technology available to them that will give them the right answers, then maybe those same people aren't the right people for the job.

Damn Straight.

I’m still filthy at Penrith’s first try. Absolutely disgusted that it happened in a Grand Final which ultimately let to comeback that should never have happened.

Also Jerome Hughes stood his ground. He did not take a step to the left or the right. He didn’t move into the path of Kikau. Another disgusting decision which almost gave Penrith the game.

I still sour. I haven’t been this filthy since the 2013 Grand Final. In normal play, calls go either way, you just have to accept it and move on. But when the bunker has the privilege of looking at a replay in slow motion, there’s no excuse.

The bunker had no right to influence yesterday’s game with those decisions.

Absolutely disgusting

 

[The Wheel]

I have two main gripes with The Bunker.

First and foremost, its not allowed to be used properly. Seriously, so many games could have ended differently, including a few of ours, if they were allowed to judge on forward passes. They can make a judgment call on onside or offside from a camera angle 20-30-40 metres behind the play and on an angle, but even with a camera directly in line at times, they can't judge on a pass that has obviously been thrown forward out of the hands and has not just floated forward.

For mine, the technology is there but there is only a half arsed approach to using it. Either go all in or get rid of it altogether. Don't just have it for some things and not others.

Then there is the human side, and Penrith's first try last night was a classic example. Anyone who knows anything about rugby league knows that it was an obstruction and should have been ruled a no-try. Yet Steve Chiddy cleared that despite the video evidence right in front of his eyes, leading to a try. If that was ruled as obstruction like it should have been, Penrith don't score and I doubt the comeback happens. It would have deflated them big time knowing it was an opportunity lost. The point is that last night was just another in the LONG list of bunker officials either getting things completely wrong, or just outright ignoring the evidence in front of them, often depending on the situation of the game at the time. Yet no matter how much bunker officials like Horsehead, Chiddy, Steve Clark and Ashley Klein get things wrong over and over and over, no matter how many Monday mornings Graham Annesley has to come out and apologise for the bunker once more getting something majorly wrong that cost a team a win or a chance to win, they are back in the bunker the next week like nothings happened.

Human error happens. No one is perfect. But when the same people make the same mistakes time and time again despite having all the technology available to them that will give them the right answers, then maybe those same people aren't the right people for the job.

I am amazed the Bunker disallowed the first Riff try to Mansour which there was no obstruction and only a minor technical breach but then awarded the Riff try when there was a massive breach - do these fools watch the same game?

 

[HoldenV8]

Maybe we should introduce a “ wheel of fortune “ every time there’s a try they spin it and where ever it lands is the result , bingo “ penalty try” , bingo “ penalty to the defensive side “ , may as well and would cost HEAPS LESS.

So who is the bunker official ... Ernie Sigley or John Burgess? Should John Deeks do the voiceover?

 

[HoldenV8]

I am amazed the Bunker disallowed the first Riff try to Mansour which there was no obstruction and only a minor technical breach but then awarded the Riff try when there was a massive breach - do these fools watch the same game?

Neither was a try IMO. But the one they allowed smacked so much of bringing Penrith back into the game on the scoreboard that it wasn't even funny. It was such a blatant obstruction that was completely ignored.

Also Jerome Hughes stood his ground. He did not take a step to the left or the right. He didn’t move into the path of Kikau. Another disgusting decision which almost gave Penrith the game.

Have to disagree on that one mate. Hughes definitely took a sideways step into Kikau's path. It was never going to be a try because Papenhauzen had the ball covered, but Hughes definitely and deliberately obstructed Kikau's path.

 

[StuBoot]

Again I ask:
Has video technology improved the sport?
For me it has only made RL more confusing and prone to controversy.
Why is there only an investigation when a try/no try is scored?
Had the incident that led to the 'penalty try' happened anywhere else on the field it wouldn't have rated a second look. Ditto for the 'Riff's kick-shepherd try.
I think the sport is poorer for the introduction of the Bunker. It creates stop-start play, the opportunity for argument over technicalities, and for blatant cheating when a defensive player often feigns interference when they misread a situation.
The Bunker is also costly to operate. It was introduced to provide 'certainty' to rulings, but as we've seen in every match when there is human involvement this is not possible.
So, what is the difference between a referee making a decision and someone in the Bunker making a decision? Both will make mistakes.

Exactly.
By the letter of the law the Penalty Try and Smith's try were correct BUT if they happened in the normal run of play I'd be willing to bet that they rule Olam dropped it in the tackle even if May's foot did play at it and Sutton would've ruled knock on in Smith's case ( he already had his whistle in his mouth before he put he ball down).
It would've been up to each team if they wanted to challenge it, that is if they had one left.

If the video ref went back and looked at the play the ball for Smith's try, at first look NAS didn't get to his feet or play it properly, 50/50 whether they pull it up but they didn't even look at it.
Other instances they look at everything under the sun.

Crighton got over the line in the first half, knew he didn't get it down and went straight back to the 10m line but no we had to go through the process for 3 minutes, in the meantime the defensive line gets a breather and reset.

The Mansour no try have seen similar ones given because one video ref makes a judgement call whereas another goes by the inside/outside shoulder guideline.

Even the Hughes sin bin, yes he got in the way but some would say he got there first and braced himself for impact. To me penalty sufficient but it seems it's either "Penalty Try or sin bin" nothing in between. He may as well have jobbed someone in the head and get 10 in the bin.
There's a massive inequity there.

I do know one thing for certain, I'm glad I pay for FOX and not have to watch Ch9 every week.

I'll watch some of the talking points again on the FOX broadcast to see if there was vastly differing views between commentary teams as they generally do.

 

[StuBoot]

So who is the bunker official ... Ernie Sigley or John Burgess? Should John Deeks do the voiceover?

What about Grant Denyer on Family Feud..."we surveyed 100 people and...." would most likely give a more accurate decision.

 

[The Who]

I have two main gripes with The Bunker.

First and foremost, its not allowed to be used properly. Seriously, so many games could have ended differently, including a few of ours, if they were allowed to judge on forward passes. They can make a judgment call on onside or offside from a camera angle 20-30-40 metres behind the play and on an angle, but even with a camera directly in line at times, they can't judge on a pass that has obviously been thrown forward out of the hands and has not just floated forward.

For mine, the technology is there but there is only a half arsed approach to using it. Either go all in or get rid of it altogether. Don't just have it for some things and not others.

Yes. You are right. You either use technology for everything, or not at all.
Problem is, you would have to use technology for every play, and the 99% of times that it doesn't lead directly to a try. Because now they only use technology for the play leading up to a try/no try.
Why is a forward pass different when it happens, say, from a run-of-the-mill hit-up to one that results in a try?
A game of football is much more involved than simply the last play actions, and even the most seemingly innocuous incident does have a butterfly effect.
Technology will continue to turn RL into gridiron where play stops after every tackle.

 

[danny-boy]

Have to disagree on that one mate. Hughes definitely took a sideways step into Kikau's path. It was never going to be a try because Papenhauzen had the ball covered, but Hughes definitely and deliberately obstructed Kikau's path.

Take another look. No sideways step. Just stood his ground and braces for impact.

And another thing. Why is it a professional foul and 10 minutes in the bin if it wasn’t a try scoring opportunity? Papenhuyzen has it covered. Should have been penalty at best.

 

[johnperi01]

Take another look. No sideways step. Just stood his ground and braces for impact.

And another thing. Why is it a professional foul and 10 minutes in the bin if it wasn’t a try scoring opportunity? Papenhuyzen has it covered. Should have been penalty at best.

Take another look, he definitely changed direction as he was aware Kikau was breathing down his neck. That’s why it’s a sin bin because a potential try scoring situation. If he had confidence that Papanhauzen had it covered he wouldn’t have moved.

 

[mave]

Clearly stepped back inside to hinder Kikau.

In hindsight he should have let Kikau through....would have knocked on anyway with his hooves.

 

[danny-boy]

Take another look, he definitely changed direction as he was aware Kikau was breathing down his neck. That’s why it’s a sin bin because a potential try scoring situation. If he had confidence that Papanhauzen had it covered he wouldn’t have moved.

There was no potential for a try scoring situation. The video ref confirmed that in the commentary and cleared it. It’s a professional foul (debatable), so only deserved a penalty at best. The 10 minutes in the bin wasn’t warranted.

 

[Shoe1]

There was no potential for a try scoring situation. The video ref confirmed that in the commentary and cleared it. It’s a professional foul (debatable), so only deserved a penalty at best. The 10 minutes in the bin wasn’t warranted.

Agree, penalty without the bin.

 

[davohan123]

I wouldn't mind betting that Papenhauzen gets the Churchill tonight,

Well done on this prediction