ABC Radio Tonight

  • We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.
Kiwi Eagle said:
Someone chuck the joke up, the un pc ones are usually the best

Morrow: "Oh, is it? So Shannon is there. And Warren is here ..."

Byrne: (Laughs) "Lights are on but no one's home.

Morrow: "Ah, is that what they say in Darwin is it. Hey? In fact they haven't even turned the lights on in Darwin yet have they?"

Byrne: "Sometimes, yeah, that doesn't even happen."

Morrow: "Dat's da only way you can tell when there's anyone, er, awake is when dey smile ... (long pause) ... righto, about 15 seconds."
 
mozgrame said:
globaleagle said:
2 muffins were in an oven.

1 says to the other "Jeez it's hot in here!"

The other says "Holy crap! A talking muffin!!!"

How big was the oven to fit both Warren Ryan and David Morrow in it? They should have both been suspended for using religious references in vain.

I said muffins, not muppets!
 
Once again on Friday night and today:

+ Not being sure why Jeff Lima was put on report
+ Not thinking the Matai video ref no-try was a try
+ Video ref Matt Rodwell (today) agreeing with (partly) his decision
+ Thinking Geoff Toovey deserves a 10,000 fine

There's probably more I'm forgetting too.

How are they allowed too get away with this?

Between David Morrow, Warren Ryan, Mat Head and Julian Abbott they are the most anti-Manly people in the country, and they never get called to order on it.

Strange.
 
Isn't the abc tax payer funded, if so that means we are all paying them for that garbage also
 
Did anyone hear the Wayne Bennett interview. Basically accusing Storm,Souths and Roosters of deliberate flaunting of the rules as they know the refs wont continually penalise them and because they will back their defense for a few sets of 6. Reckon the NRL has a huge problem with these deliberate tactics and it will cause chaos in the finals as the refs are even less likely to penalise then.
 
mickqld said:
Did anyone hear the Wayne Bennett interview. Basically accusing Storm,Souths and Roosters of deliberate flaunting of the rules as they know the refs wont continually penalise them and because they will back their defense for a few sets of 6. Reckon the NRL has a huge problem with these deliberate tactics and it will cause chaos in the finals as the refs are even less likely to penalise then.

Yet Manly not Souths were the ones pinged for 5 piggy back penalties to Souths to get out of their own half in the first 40 minutes on Friday.


patorick2010 said:
+ Video ref Matt Rodwell (today) agreeing with (partly) his decision

I can't work out how someone can be a video referee and still be allowed by the NRL to work on radio as a NRL commentator.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-18/roosters-reaping-benefits-of-poor-discipline/4894862?section=sport

Are the Roosters [AND Manly] reaping the benefits of their poor discipline?
By Grandstand stats analyst Tim Gore

When we think of sides that concede lots of penalties, most assume that they will be the struggling teams at the foot of the ladder. Most weeks those sides end up doing far more defending and they get tired.

Tired and frustrated players give away penalties. So it is no surprise to see both Parramatta and the Wests Tigers in the top four sides for penalties conceded in 2013.

But those sides are only the third and fourth worst offenders.This year the ladder leading Sydney Roosters are the side that concedes the most penalties by far.

After round 22 the Roosters had conceded 165 penalties - 17 more than the next on the list, the Manly Sea Eagles.

So far the majority of sides have only two or three players that have personally conceded over 10 penalties in 2013. However, the Roosters have seven regular offenders and Manly has eight.

The Roosters boast the least line breaks and tries conceded this season. Their defence is a major cornerstone of their success.

The Sea Eagle's defensive stats are almost as impressive, but the question must be asked: is it possible that their defensive successes are actually due in part - if not substantially - to their high penalty counts?

Roosters coach Trent Robinson said recently he was concerned about his side's high penalty count and that he intended to discuss it with referees boss Daniel Anderson.

Given his sides results it is hard to understand why Trent would be concerned. Anderson would probably tell Trent that the stats point out:

His side frequently is seen to hold down the tackled player;
His team is seen often to interfere with the play the ball; and
His players are frequently seen to be offside.

In short, it could be argued that the Roosters play a brand of football that consistently tries to slow down their opponents' attack.

James Maloney is the NRL's worst offender with 21 penalties conceded personally. In the round 20 game versus the Knights, the Roosters conceded 14 penalties and Maloney personally conceded four of them.

It was only after two late tries to the Roosters that they sealed that game. It may well have been a different result if the bin had been used.

Give the Knights those two competition points and they are in fifth spot.

The Roosters concede a massive average of 8.25 penalties a game - nearly two penalties a game more than the NRL average. In 11 of their 16 wins they have lost the penalty count.

In fact, Sydney has only won three penalty counts in 2013. Fourteen times in 2013 the Roosters conceded eight or more penalties in a match. They lose the penalty count on average by almost 2.5 penalties a game.

Average pens conceded per game 2013 6.5
Sydney Roosters 8.25
Cronulla Sharks 5.5
The stats show that Manly is not far behind the Roosters in all of these regards. You just need to look at the NRL ladder to see that there is no big downside for either team in conceding so many penalties.

Out of the top 20 most penalised players in 2013, eight of them - come from the Roosters and Manly.

In spite of these two teams appalling rate of penalties conceded, neither has had a player sin binned in 2013.

The other sides in the top four - Melbourne and the Rabbitohs - score almost as many points as The Roosters. But both give away far fewer penalties and concede a fair few more points. A coincidence?

The Storm in fact concede the second fewest penalties in the NRL after the Sharks. What reward - apart from a lower ladder position - do the Storm and the Sharks get for having such good discipline?

More importantly, what punishment do the Roosters and the Sea Eagles get for having such terrible discipline? It is fairly clear that penalties conceded alone are not a disincentive.

Daniel Anderson must instruct his refs to use the sin bin for repeat infringers. Any player who concedes three penalties in a match should go to the sideline for 10 minutes.

The refs should have even less tolerance for known regular offenders who should go to the bin after conceding two penalties.

Furthermore, game suspensions for players could be put in place when players pass milestones of personal penalties conceded throughout the season. This is the same system that punishes regularly carded players in the English Premier League quite effectively.

These measures would surely open up the game as a spectacle and ensure that the NRL was seen to be clearly of the view that crime shouldn't pay.

You can follow Tim Gore on Twitter @gorskiopork

A very subjective assessment that failed to appreciate a crucial point > all referees are not equal in standard or in what they see and what they choose to penalise. Presuming Melbourne & Souths are better disciplined based on looking at penalty counts is pretty simplistic and superficial analysis of rugby league tactics. Souths and Storm are in my opinion better at milking penalties and better at slowing down the play the ball without giving away penalties. That doesn't make them better disciplined. It makes them better cheats or milkers. The Storm got hammered by the referees in the penalty count today anyway, so where that leaves the writer's theory I have no idea.
 
When given the options of what mob to stream, I dodge the ABC every time because of their anti Manly crap.
I think, "ok, you made your point, you don't like Manly, now get on with the F#%n call!"
Normally go with Triple M or 2GB.
 
That is just a case of making stats serve a certain point of argument, the scum are one of the least penalised team because they just don't get penalised where other teams do, souffs are treated in the same favourable way most games
 
How can Matt Rodwell be a video ref?

I've listened to them call a game once in about 2 years, and I remember him having a dig at Manly and their fans. Impartial? Yeah right.
 
Top analysis that rips apart the Herald story from Monday and the ABC story from Sunday that claimed the Roosters and Manly are deliberately giving away penalties and that's why they are the most penalised teams in the NRL.

http://drnrl.wordpress.com/2013/08/20/stats-wars-a-forelorn-hope-the-abcs-war-on-facts/

The fact is that the Roosters and Manly have had to post superhuman defensive efforts because of the lopsided penalty counts against them. They are successful in spite of them, in other words. If it were any other way, they would not be well entrenched in the Top 4, and they would not be credible contenders for the Premiership.



But the Roosters’ coach, along with little Toovs, might ask different questions:

1. Why do we not attract more penalties for the opposition holding us down in the same we are found guilty, when there is clear evidence of them doing so? Not to mention similar incidents in other games played over the same weekend?

2. Ditto, but with respect to interfering in the play the ball.

3. Why is it that we work hard to play the ball quickly and catch the opposition offside, yet are not rewarded for it? Please explain how it is different to the penalties blown against us?

Asking in this way might be implicitly accusative, but not explicitly. These questions are designed to illicit detailed answers.

When I fail to see any major differences between teams in any particular match, it’s hard to understand penalty counts in favour of one team that are measured in multiples of two to three.


But like Demtel, there’s always more. We are then treated to what can only be interpreted as designed to prod referees into penalising these two teams further:

“In spite of these two teams appalling rate of penalties conceded, neither has had a player sin binned in 2013.”

No, though (the Roosters’) Jared Warea-Hargreave managed to be the only player sent from the field for an act that was preceded and followed by far graver incidents. And the Melbourne Storm continue to be shepherded through the competition by referees who cannot seem to bring themselves to penalise them for blatant fouls. The so-called Big 3 have been culpable on several occasions this year without sanction, the latest being an obvious sin-binning infringement by Cooper Cronk against the Knights on Sunday that … well … wasn’t.

Why? Nobody knows, but everyone suspects.



Penalise them, no problem. But once again, I’ve sat through games where a defender has been penalised due to the superb theatrics of the man playing the ball, often including walking up to two metres off the mark in order to do so. Rather than give the attacking team the penalty, this is a clear example of referees not applying the rules (not knowing them if you ask me). If the man with the ball walks off the mark, penalise him … Or, in the spirit of the flow of the game, don’t penalise the marker for being offside. Simple stuff. Low hanging fruit. Reckon they can get it right?


So my message to Manly and Toovs is this – keep calling the referees out for incompetence. Ricky did it earlier in the year and accepted the fine, which was a mistake. The fine is there for implying bias, not for unveiling the referee clown show for what it is.

Keep calling out the grading system relating to suspensions for leniency, and the NRL for double standards and inconsistency.

And when the former referees boss, Bill Harrigan, can single out Jeff Lima for a 10 week suspension for an obvious attack on the structure of another man’s leg, why can’t a coach mention it in passing? The MRC aren’t that malleable and easily influenced, are they?

Oh, right …
 
I can't believe our taxes pay for these clowns.
The govt called save 1 bil a year and make them become self sufficient and have advertising revenue streams. What them left their game then
 
Brissie Kid, I followed the link to Dr NRL and read the full article, makes Grandstand stats analyst Tim Gore look pretty dumb.
 
Volley said:
How can Matt Rodwell be a video ref?

I've listened to them call a game once in about 2 years, and I remember him having a dig at Manly and their fans. Impartial? Yeah right.

Similarly, Luke Patten wears a second hat as a commentator on Grandstand. As a commentator he does pretty well. But his Bulldog and other biases are clearly still evident. Which is one thing in his role as a commentator, but concerning in his role as a video ref, especially as a video ref in Bulldogs games. So it is shocking to see him officiating in Bulldogs games.

Can anyone seriously imagine him making a crucial 50/50 call against the Bulldogs in the finals? At a minimum referees and linesmen and video refs should be banned from officiating in games for the team(s) they support or hate - irrespective of their assessed competence. Any sniff of any bias by referees must be stamped out.

If clubs (players/officials/etc) are being banned from making any public derogatory comments against referees the reverse - obviously - must first apply.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
3 3 0 48 6
3 2 1 45 4
3 2 1 28 4
3 2 1 22 4
3 2 1 15 4
3 2 1 14 4
2 1 1 13 4
3 2 1 10 4
2 1 1 6 4
3 2 1 -3 4
3 1 2 0 2
3 1 2 -5 2
3 1 2 -15 2
3 1 2 -22 2
3 1 2 -36 2
2 0 2 -56 2
3 0 3 -64 0
Back
Top Bottom