The Greenhouse

Not to be finicky but these really got my back up.

In their first try they have a guy standing in an offside position taking up a bit of space where he should be, i think it was there number 3, who cleared away space from the defender who let the try in.

The second one, someone runs a line at the outside shoulder of our defender, i think lui, who doesnt dive but never makes up for it leaving a bit of space for corey thompson to run through, i thnink lawrence was the player. If they are going to be so sensitive over our tries, imo line runners who run at the outside shoulder of a slidfing defence, where they are mile in front of the play and in the defensive line, should be penalised every time whether a try is given or not.

I didn’t agree with our no try decisions. But the refs were correct to award tries to Tigers.

Yeah I think it was Packer who didn't actually run through the line. It comes back to football smarts IMO. Our defender/s needed to make it known that he was impeded instead of being so passive.

Not sure what the answer is but some smart footy folks need to get around a table with a big bowl on mentos in the middle and clean this up. Not good for the game that exciting tries get over ruled due to technical infringements and spectators can't celebrate tries until after the obligatory review.

I only had a drama with the Boyd one on put down

Sent from my SM-G950F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Boyd try they completely stuffed up. It was moot anyway as we scored next play. I had no real issue with the other calls. Tigers tries were fine. Wighton no-try was technically the correct ruling. Tiger player just made sure he was obstructed.

"We have a try, can you check obstruction ?"

They need to make it like the TMO in union

They only check what the ref asks to be checked

"I have a try check grounding" "Grounding confirmed you may award the try" takes about 3 seconds

Yeah i dont really know what the complaints about the tigers tries could be

They were both a direct result of woeful defensive reads.

Papalii with eyes only for the back man and completely whiffed on Lawrance, and then Blake Austin having a mild stroke on our goal line.

on the second try the tigers decoy should not run a line at the outside shoulder of the defender, it actually created the space that allowed thompson through.

we still should have tackled him, but the defender was just sliding he didnt make a decision to tackle the decoy.

Yeah... na.

He didn't interfere with anyone.. it was Blake Austin cutting back through the middle of the ruck and **** up the numbers

I didn’t notice anything in the Tigers tries. I did notice one of their repeat sets was through a gap made by an obstruction.

And of course anyone in the game day thread knows my opinion on the two Raider no trys.

I had no issues with the referees this week.
I had lots of issues with the bunker this week.

If I had a replay, you would all feel me.

First Tigers try at 37 seconds. Austin does get caught up by a player standing next to the ruck but Wighton doesn't get across to make the tackle. It really is just poor defence on the line, someone needs to commit to the lead runner and it needs to be the inside defender.

Second Tigers try at 1:02. The Tigers lead runner runs through the line but instead of coming up with the line and the lead runner hitting his outside shoulder he hangs off completely and leaves the gap. Probably could have turned it into an obstruction but didn't as he didn't come up with the line. Poor defensive play, nothing to see here.

Thanks pickles. You are spot on in the assessment. With the first one the Tigers player was about to go to dummy half then backs off. Austin tangled with him momentarily then proceeded to run across field to his defensive position and well past the play which cut back infield. Austin never got onside anyway so penalty Tigers if you want to really analyse it.

Second one was actually a well executed decoy run. He went to the line without contacting any defender and the ball was passed behind him. No chance thats going to be called obstruction.

I cannot believe this.

After that howler of a performance in the bunker this weekend, Klein has been appointed to ref Origin.

The contempt from the NRL is breathtaking. And where is our apology or admission of the error from the NRL? Haven't seen it yet...

for the second try that highlights package doesnt show the lead up properly of the tigers runner he actually does make a bit of contact with lui which creates the space, im pretty sure that without that contact and him being in that space lui is able to make up for the 2 cms thompson got his try by.

the highlights do show lui out of position, if u see the full replays you will see he is out of position because of the obstruction by the lead runner.

raiderskater wrote:I cannot believe this.

After that howler of a performance in the bunker this weekend, Klein has been appointed to ref Origin.

The contempt from the NRL is breathtaking. And where is our apology or admission of the error from the NRL? Haven't seen it yet...

Can you imagine if that decision was against the Broncos!? He’d never ref again!

papabear wrote:for the second try that highlights package doesnt show the lead up properly of the tigers runner he actually does make a bit of contact with lui which creates the space, im pretty sure that without that contact and him being in that space lui is able to make up for the 2 cms thompson got his try by.

the highlights do show lui out of position, if u see the full replays you will see he is out of position because of the obstruction by the lead runner.

I was behind the posts at that end, there was no obstruction

I was fine with the Tigers tries.. Was poorly defended by us. The first one especially was due to Austin confusing our own defence when he was trying to get back into position after making a tackle.

The video refs were a farce though with the Boyd No Try. On field ref did ask for the grounding to be checked, but at the bottom line is that it was sent up as a Try and the video ref did not have sufficient evidence to over turn it, but it looks like the video ref through the decision was sent up as No Try. Idiot.

Aero wrote: ↑June 20, 2018, 5:12 am I was fine with the Tigers tries.. Was poorly defended by us. The first one especially was due to Austin confusing our own defence when he was trying to get back into position after making a tackle.

The video refs were a farce though with the Boyd No Try. On field ref did ask for the grounding to be checked, but at the bottom line is that it was sent up as a Try and the video ref did not have sufficient evidence to over turn it, but it looks like the video ref through the decision was sent up as No Try. Idiot.

There’s no evidence on the replay of the audio to suggest that. The Fox commentary suggested that, but there seems to be no bunker audio to suggest they thought that. They simply over ruled as they claimed there was no vision of the ball on the ground. But neither was there conclusive evidence it was not on the ground. Simply inconsistent with the protocol. We’ve had no explanation but for the bunker Twitter tweet issued at 6:16pm, after the game.

72nd Min: #NRLTigersRaiders

No Try @RaidersCanberra.

Croker is behind ball carrier which makes him a support player. Eisenhuth has two hands under the ball and holds the ball up.

#NRL⁠ ⁠

It would be nice if they admitted the stuff up but I suppose no one is asking given the context of the game.

edwahu wrote: ↑June 20, 2018, 8:19 am It would be nice if they admitted the stuff up but I suppose no one is asking given the context of the game.

I'd be annoyed if we missed out on the 8 due to a 4 point F/A differential. Mind you, we did score the very next play.

reptar wrote: ↑June 20, 2018, 8:59 am

edwahu wrote: ↑June 20, 2018, 8:19 am It would be nice if they admitted the stuff up but I suppose no one is asking given the context of the game.

I'd be annoyed if we missed out on the 8 due to a 4 point F/A differential. Mind you, we did score the very next play.

There's about 4 terrible losses that were our own fault. Season review should focus on that not referees.

zim wrote:

reptar wrote: ↑June 20, 2018, 8:59 am

edwahu wrote: ↑June 20, 2018, 8:19 am It would be nice if they admitted the stuff up but I suppose no one is asking given the context of the game.

I'd be annoyed if we missed out on the 8 due to a 4 point F/A differential. Mind you, we did score the very next play.

There's about 4 terrible losses that were our own fault. Season review should focus on that not referees.

That annoys me now

zim wrote: ↑June 20, 2018, 11:21 am

reptar wrote: ↑June 20, 2018, 8:59 am

edwahu wrote: ↑June 20, 2018, 8:19 am It would be nice if they admitted the stuff up but I suppose no one is asking given the context of the game.

I'd be annoyed if we missed out on the 8 due to a 4 point F/A differential. Mind you, we did score the very next play.

There's about 4 terrible losses that were our own fault. Season review should focus on that not referees.

I agree ZIM - the Raiders review should focus on our own issues. That would be a culture of accountability.

But the refs should also review on their accountability. Given Ashleigh Klown has been named as assistant referee for Origin 2, I would say that their has been no internal consequence of that howler.

Raiders season review: We was robbed we was

I am not saying we were robbed. Nor am I saying that the refs cost us anything. We obviously find new and creative ways to lose all on our own.

All I posted this thread for was to find the right vision, and discuss it, and there has been a lot of discussion and some vision but i just need a little more!!

All im saying is the refs did a poor job, the second try, im fairly certain does not get scored if lui doesnt get bumped by packer i think it was bumping his outside shoulder in an illegal position in front of the ball.

One day I will get the vision i need and show it.

I had no issue with either of the Tigers tries. More an issue of our poor defensive reads imo. But like everyone else, the Boyd 'no try' ruling is a farce. Perhaps Mr De-Klein doesn't like working in the Bunker and has made a decision in a game where such a decision has no impact on the outcome, so he doesn't get back there again.

greeneyed wrote: ↑June 20, 2018, 6:03 am

Aero wrote: ↑June 20, 2018, 5:12 am I was fine with the Tigers tries.. Was poorly defended by us. The first one especially was due to Austin confusing our own defence when he was trying to get back into position after making a tackle.

The video refs were a farce though with the Boyd No Try. On field ref did ask for the grounding to be checked, but at the bottom line is that it was sent up as a Try and the video ref did not have sufficient evidence to over turn it, but it looks like the video ref through the decision was sent up as No Try. Idiot.

There’s no evidence on the replay of the audio to suggest that. The Fox commentary suggested that, but there seems to be no bunker audio to suggest they thought that. They simply over ruled as they claimed there was no vision of the ball on the ground. But neither was there conclusive evidence it was not on the ground. Simply inconsistent with the protocol. We’ve had no explanation but for the bunker Twitter tweet issued at 6:16pm, after the game.

72nd Min: #NRLTigersRaiders

No Try @RaidersCanberra.

Croker is behind ball carrier which makes him a support player. Eisenhuth has two hands under the ball and holds the ball up.

#NRL⁠ ⁠

It was definitely sent up as TRY and grounding was asked to be checked

https://www.9now.com.au/2018-nrl-premie ... episode-46 - 1:36:05 - a bit hard to hear over Gus going off, but the on field ref says to check "..and through to grounding".

Regardless of whether it was asked to be checked or not, there was no sufficient evidence to overturn the original Try call. The only reason I can think of why they hit the No Try button would be because the video ref completely forgot what the original decision was. Has the ref's boss said anything about that decision?

@Aero No he hasn’t.