The Rickman wrote:
Wait a second... in 2016 Jack Wighton got charged with a CLEAR shoulder charge before the semi-final against the Sharks and got LET OFF and played the game!!
This argument does you NO favours gangers hahaha
Ok let’s start with Tweedledee.
The argument does me no favours because you haven’t taken it correctly at all. The clear discrepancy in the treatment of near identical shoulder charges for Ennis and Wighton was a clear case of the different treatment of certain clubs/players. The understandable outrage that followed left the NRL with no option but to overturn at the judiciary (and credit to pigman here, as this is exactly what he predicted they would do). T_R evidently agreed, along with pretty much all NRL fans bar two perhaps.
gangrenous wrote: ↑May 17, 2019, 8:57 am
I suspected you couldn’t
Hahahah of **** course you do. Christ. What an embarrassment.
Hot tip. YOU can.
Yeah nah. I’ve cited my evidence, and I don’t believe there is much for me to find as far as counters against the Raiders. You’re a Raiders fan who has been watching as closely as I have. If I can name four clear howlers from the last minutes that decided games against the Raiders, surely you can recall some we won from howlers if your argument stacks up?
Last edited by gangrenous on May 17, 2019, 6:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
gangrenous wrote: ↑May 17, 2019, 7:52 am
Pigman and Nickman have an argument that sounds fine on paper. And of course the comments in the game day thread on the Greenhouse are going to be biased towards the Raiders and focus more on referee errors against the Raiders.
But that is not mutually exclusive with the notion that the Raiders do in fact get the spiky end of the pineapple more often than the juicy end.
So off the top of my head in the last few years the Raiders have lost a number of close games where a very poor decision handed the game to their opponents:
- we’ve mentioned the Cronulla touchie decision already. Textbook howler of a decision that the flag was ignored by two on field refs and the video ref.
- we had Manly score via a player out of play from the downtown rule
- we had the Titans score from an offside position when the ball rebounded from a player directly behind him.
- we had Penrith set a wall for their match winning field goal
Three of these were also reviewed by the video ref from memory, and flipped the game in the final minute or two. People can probably recall a few more bad ones I’ve missed. So if it’s swings and roundabouts I expect pigman and Nickman should be able to supply us with a number of games where a clear cut incorrect decision decided the game in favour of the Raiders.
Ok, I'll bite on this one. Very first game I looked at, was against the Broncos in Round 6. So I logged onto the Broncos forum, go to this very page...
"Fantastic game, we had zero calls go our way and without our 2 main forwards, and still only just lost at the siren.
Jack "bash'em up" Wightons 40/20 looked suss live, the touchy was nowhere near being able to call it. How was Glenn being taken out not a professional foul?
Anyone who starts their usual Bull about our season being over I'll call you out on it. Seibold hasn't done too much wrong."
The very first page of that thread! I'm not going to dedicate any more of my time to this ridiculous notion that we're the only set of fans who thinks they get hard done by, but I guarantee you can produce a similar set of results for every game we've won this year.
*drops mic*
And back to Tweedledee:
Again you don’t seem able to grasp the argument. Of course teams forums will be filled with one-eyed views of the refereeing.
But is this seriously your counter showing the refs regularly influence games on the back of howlers? Off the top of my head I gave you four clear cut incorrect game deciding decisions. And to balance you give me a Bronco fan upset about a correct 40/20 call?
The bunker said in his opinion Boyd wouldn't have scored even if he was impeded, so technically not a try scoring situation. So the sinbin is simply for a professional foul. So what is the difference between that type of professional foul and when an attacker is blocked or run off the ball. If we're looking at consistency with sinbins on professional fouls and that is the standard - there would be several sinbins every game that's played.
gergreg wrote: ↑May 17, 2019, 8:12 pm
Can we talk about the sinbin?
The bunker said in his opinion Boyd wouldn't have scored even if he was impeded, so technically not a try scoring situation. So the sinbin is simply for a professional foul. So what is the difference between that type of professional foul and when an attacker is blocked or run off the ball. If we're looking at consistency with sinbins on professional fouls and that is the standard - there would be several sinbins every game that's played.
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Just because they dont think he would have scored, doesnt mean it's not a try scoring situation.
There is a clear try scoring chance, the requirement for a penalty try is that is LIKELY the player scores if not fouled...
You cant award a penalty try unless it's likely, but the fact it's not likely doesnt make it not a try scoring situation.
Players run off the ball are not in a direct try scoring situation. I think there is a very clear and obvious difference. But keen to hear others thoughts. It's a point worth raising and discussing with the rise in in sin bins.
Last edited by Botman on May 17, 2019, 8:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
PigRickman wrote:Also i dont care how much im supposed to hate them, i love watching the roosters play and i appreciate how they construct their roster.
With brown paper bags full of money?
Last edited by Dr Zaius on May 17, 2019, 8:24 pm, edited 4 times in total.
gergreg wrote: ↑May 17, 2019, 8:12 pm
Can we talk about the sinbin?
The bunker said in his opinion Boyd wouldn't have scored even if he was impeded, so technically not a try scoring situation. So the sinbin is simply for a professional foul. So what is the difference between that type of professional foul and when an attacker is blocked or run off the ball. If we're looking at consistency with sinbins on professional fouls and that is the standard - there would be several sinbins every game that's played.
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Just because they dont think he would have scored, doesnt mean it's not a try scoring situation.
There is a clear try scoring chance, the requirement for a penalty try is that is LIKELY the player scores if not fouled...
You cant award a penalty try unless it's likely, but the fact it's not likely doesnt make it not a try scoring situation.
Players run off the ball are not in a direct try scoring situation. I think there is a very clear and obvious difference. But keen to hear others thoughts. It's a point worth raising and discussing with the rise in in sin bins.
For example, the penalty right then for Oates being tackled attempting to catch that bomb. I'd argue that is as much (if not more) of a try scoring situation as the Boyd one.
PigRickman wrote:Also i dont care how much im supposed to hate them, i love watching the roosters play and i appreciate how they construct their roster.
With brown paper bags full of money?
You can have all the money in the world and if you dont know how to construct a team, you'll be garbage... look at the Broncos.
We were also very guilty and acting like naughty children in the ruck because we were being played off the **** park in the middle, where as the ruck here seems to, as you suggest, following nicely. But think that's probably neither here nor there for where you want to go with this
PigRickman wrote: ↑May 17, 2019, 8:32 pm
We were also very guilty and acting like naughty children in the ruck because we were being played off the **** park in the middle, where as the ruck here seems to, as you suggest, following nicely. But think that's probably neither here nor there for where you want to go with this
PigRickman wrote: ↑May 17, 2019, 8:32 pm
We were also very guilty and acting like naughty children in the ruck because we were being played off the **** park in the middle, where as the ruck here seems to, as you suggest, following nicely. But think that's probably neither here nor there for where you want to go with this