That decision

[-PJ-]

so that's a 10-12 point difference the NRL has agreed on so the end score should have been

raiders 28/30 sharks 22


very different story then.....

Very different...we're alive next week.

[dubby]

It hurts. It really hurts

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

[cat]

that it does dubby, that it does


you can over come ref errors during the game but one's that actually have a points value added to them! they hurt big time and should not be happening

how can ricky look at the players and say you should have done more to win when we did enough?

[lars]

so that's a 10-12 point difference the NRL has agreed on so the end score should have been

raiders 28/30 sharks 22


very different story then.....

That’s not how it works. Unless the ref mistake is on the last play, there’s no way of knowing what affect it would have had. As frustrating as they were, there’s no way we can know whether the ref errors last night cost us the game. Influenced it, yes. But didn’t cost us. There was plenty to go in the game and (particularly for the raiders) there was still every chance we’d **** the bed.

[woppadingo]

The goal is to take referees decisions out of the outcome. You have to realise that no matter how bad the refereeing is, you have to overcome it. The whole raiders organisation and fan base has to come to terms with that.

[myanonymoususername]

It’s so frustrating to see all of the forward passes we see let go game to game, so to see passes that clearly went backwards be called forward...

That is a direct reaction to being criticised for failing to call blatant forward passes. Now they're trigger happy and calling imaginary ones

[Green thumbs]

Words fail me!
Like many others, I would ditch the NRL if it wasn’t for my long standing support of the Green Machine.

[gangrenous]

so that's a 10-12 point difference the NRL has agreed on so the end score should have been

raiders 28/30 sharks 22


very different story then.....

That’s not how it works. Unless the ref mistake is on the last play, there’s no way of knowing what affect it would have had. As frustrating as they were, there’s no way we can know whether the ref errors last night cost us the game. Influenced it, yes. But didn’t cost us. There was plenty to go in the game and (particularly for the raiders) there was still every chance we’d **** the bed.

By your own argument you shouldn’t say “didn’t cost us”. You contradict your whole thesis of not knowing what the result may have been.

[Green eyed Mick]

The goal is to take referees decisions out of the outcome. You have to realise that no matter how bad the refereeing is, you have to overcome it. The whole raiders organisation and fan base has to come to terms with that.

It has always been the case. Across Australia there is a strong current of anti-Canberra bias and there is no doubt that impacts the way players, officials and rival fans view the city and by extension the club.

We have to be better and despite having ample opportunities to prevent the Sharks putting on 24 points in one half and having plenty of opportunities to overcome the differential in the second half, we are focussing on the two opportunities the refs messed up for us.

The Raiders made 11 errors, missed just under 30 tackles and conceded more penalties than the Sharks. We conceded 300 more running metres as well. We didn't deserve to win and playing the victim when you keep shooting yourself in the foot isn't going to help change the culture or the mentality that keeps this club wallowing in mediocrity decade after decade.

It's the same **** with the whingeing about Wighton's sanction. Is it fair? Who knows, definitely not any of us, but why carry on when it makes no difference to our season and the club has no power to change the sanction anyway.

[lars]

so that's a 10-12 point difference the NRL has agreed on so the end score should have been

raiders 28/30 sharks 22


very different story then.....

That’s not how it works. Unless the ref mistake is on the last play, there’s no way of knowing what affect it would have had. As frustrating as they were, there’s no way we can know whether the ref errors last night cost us the game. Influenced it, yes. But didn’t cost us. There was plenty to go in the game and (particularly for the raiders) there was still every chance we’d **** the bed.

By your own argument you shouldn’t say “didn’t cost us”. You contradict your whole thesis of not knowing what the result may have been.

My point was that you can say it influenced the game but not that it cost us the game. Of course I’m open to the possibility we could have won (eg saying ‘could have **** the bed’ rather than ‘would have’). If you take my post as a whole, it was pretty clear I was saying we can’t be sure what the result would have been.

[Seiffert82]

Those two decisions were just the tip of the iceberg.

[Northern Raider]

so that's a 10-12 point difference the NRL has agreed on so the end score should have been

raiders 28/30 sharks 22


very different story then.....

That’s not how it works. Unless the ref mistake is on the last play, there’s no way of knowing what affect it would have had. As frustrating as they were, there’s no way we can know whether the ref errors last night cost us the game. Influenced it, yes. But didn’t cost us. There was plenty to go in the game and (particularly for the raiders) there was still every chance we’d **** the bed.

By your own argument you shouldn’t say “didn’t cost us”. You contradict your whole thesis of not knowing what the result may have been.

My point was that you can say it influenced the game but not that it cost us the game. Of course I’m open to the possibility we could have won (eg saying ‘could have **** the bed’ rather than ‘would have’). If you take my post as a whole, it was pretty clear I was saying we can’t be sure what the result would have been.

...and that concludes today's lesson in semantics.

[gangrenous]

so that's a 10-12 point difference the NRL has agreed on so the end score should have been

raiders 28/30 sharks 22


very different story then.....

That’s not how it works. Unless the ref mistake is on the last play, there’s no way of knowing what affect it would have had. As frustrating as they were, there’s no way we can know whether the ref errors last night cost us the game. Influenced it, yes. But didn’t cost us. There was plenty to go in the game and (particularly for the raiders) there was still every chance we’d **** the bed.

By your own argument you shouldn’t say “didn’t cost us”. You contradict your whole thesis of not knowing what the result may have been.

My point was that you can say it influenced the game but not that it cost us the game. Of course I’m open to the possibility we could have won (eg saying ‘could have **** the bed’ rather than ‘would have’). If you take my post as a whole, it was pretty clear I was saying we can’t be sure what the result would have been.

It’s pretty clear what you were trying to say. It’s not what you said.

Similarly when other people write “it cost us the game” you could arguably understand that what they mean is “it potentially/likely/arguably cost us the game” depending on their context

[lars]

so that's a 10-12 point difference the NRL has agreed on so the end score should have been

raiders 28/30 sharks 22


very different story then.....

That’s not how it works. Unless the ref mistake is on the last play, there’s no way of knowing what affect it would have had. As frustrating as they were, there’s no way we can know whether the ref errors last night cost us the game. Influenced it, yes. But didn’t cost us. There was plenty to go in the game and (particularly for the raiders) there was still every chance we’d **** the bed.

By your own argument you shouldn’t say “didn’t cost us”. You contradict your whole thesis of not knowing what the result may have been.

My point was that you can say it influenced the game but not that it cost us the game. Of course I’m open to the possibility we could have won (eg saying ‘could have **** the bed’ rather than ‘would have’). If you take my post as a whole, it was pretty clear I was saying we can’t be sure what the result would have been.

It’s pretty clear what you were trying to say. It’s not what you said.

Similarly when other people write “it cost us the game” you could arguably understand that what they mean is “it potentially/likely/arguably cost us the game” depending on their context

[FuiFui BradBrad]

so that's a 10-12 point difference the NRL has agreed on so the end score should have been

raiders 28/30 sharks 22


very different story then.....

There are 7 games this season where we lost by less than 4 points.

We win those, we would have 32 points, be leading the comp, and 1 bad night from the referees wouldn’t be an issue.

Very different story then

[BJ]

so that's a 10-12 point difference the NRL has agreed on so the end score should have been

raiders 28/30 sharks 22


very different story then.....

There are 7 games this season where we lost by less than 4 points.

We win those, we would have 32 points, be leading the comp, and 1 bad night from the referees wouldn’t be an issue.

Very different story then

Problem is the referees boss has admitted to Stuart earlier in the year, that some referee errors cost the Raiders wins.

I’m pretty sure they included the Titans obvious off side from a Raiders kick that would have enabled an easy penalty kick to Raiders, not a try at the other end for Titans, I think there was also a clear forward pass by Titans in the lead up to their try.

Also the two unpenalised elbows on Sezer against Warriors. Either of These calls, would have been match winning penalties for Raiders, not tries at the other end for warriors. The player was charged by the match review committee after the game.

[raiderskater]

so that's a 10-12 point difference the NRL has agreed on so the end score should have been

raiders 28/30 sharks 22


very different story then.....

There are 7 games this season where we lost by less than 4 points.

We win those, we would have 32 points, be leading the comp, and 1 bad night from the referees wouldn’t be an issue.

Very different story then

Problem is the referees boss has admitted to Stuart earlier in the year, that some referee errors cost the Raiders wins.

I’m pretty sure they included the Titans obvious off side from a Raiders kick that would have enabled an easy penalty kick to Raiders, not a try at the other end for Titans, I think there was also a clear forward pass by Titans in the lead up to their try.

Also the two unpenalised elbows on Sezer against Warriors. Either of These calls, would have been match winning penalties for Raiders, not tries at the other end for warriors. The player was charged by the match review committee after the game.

These were the two that immediately sprang to my mind as well. Particularly the Warriors one where Sezer was hit late/high/off the ball three times in that match - oh and IIRC, none of the judiciary charges got much in the way of punishment. (But there's no favourites in the NRL! I'm sure if it had been Thurston or Slater or Smith we'd have seen just the same! )

[FuiFui BradBrad]

Even so, I included this week’s game in those 7. So let’s get rid of those three, still leaves us with 26 points and equal 4th. 5th using our current for/against


Sent from my iPhone using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[Riaan]

We scored off a pretty blatant forward pass in the first half(rapana I think).....can someone subtract that from our score

[hobbsy]

And yet, there have been countless other bad decisions that the same argument of 'costing' a team a game can be applied, in matches that dont involve the Raiders. Who is to say that had all referee decisions been correct all year that the teams around us on the ladder would be on the same points also? We might still be out of the race if you went back through every game and looked for all correct decisions.

[BJ]

And yet, there have been countless other bad decisions that the same argument of 'costing' a team a game can be applied, in matches that dont involve the Raiders. Who is to say that had all referee decisions been correct all year that the teams around us on the ladder would be on the same points also? We might still be out of the race if you went back through every game and looked for all correct decisions.

Who was your maths teacher Hobbsy.

If we have 6 extra points, it’s not mathematically possible for us to be in the same position. Other teams may move around based on 100% perfect decisions in your scenario, but getting the three extra wins has to have an impact on our ladder position.

It’s why every team in 8th spot has a 50/50 win loss ratio, give or take 1 game.

Half the 16 teams make the 8, the splitting of points from teams winning and losing against each other makes this relatively consistent.

[hobbsy]

And yet, there have been countless other bad decisions that the same argument of 'costing' a team a game can be applied, in matches that dont involve the Raiders. Who is to say that had all referee decisions been correct all year that the teams around us on the ladder would be on the same points also? We might still be out of the race if you went back through every game and looked for all correct decisions.

Who was your maths teacher Hobbsy.

If we have 6 extra points, it’s not mathematically possible for us to be in the same position. Other teams may move around based on 100% perfect decisions in your scenario, but getting the three extra wins has to have an impact on our ladder position.

It’s why every team in 8th spot has a 50/50 win loss ratio, give or take 1 game.

Half the 16 teams make the 8, the splitting of points from teams winning and losing against each other makes this relatively consistent.

Miss Xu. She hated me and sent me out of the room a lot, so I didnt learn heaps.

You are correct, we would be in a different position with 6 extra points, but in saying that you could probably take the entire thing a step further and say that if every team hadn't had calls go against them that cost them points and the whole ladder is shifted around that certain teams have more or less to play for in games, their mindset is different etc. What if it means the Bulldogs are in the hunt and they are driven more to defend against us in the last 10 minutes and we lose last week? The point is with these hypotheticals it really is impossible to say definitively what the outcome of games or the ladder would be if things happened differently.

[Ultima]

The Warriors got doubled **** as well... Smith goes high on a player, then goes the second effort when he gets up to play the ball and insanely they call it knock on Warriors.... Even at the end of the game, the ball goes back, hits the ref, and they call play on again where it clearly gave an advantage to the Storm... Should have been a scrum to the attacking side...

They need a massive clean out of all the ref management and a bunch of the refs as well. Throw big money at some from the UK, we have to do something as breading our own isn't working.

[Ultima]

Also if we hadn't been **** by the refs we would be 4 points behind four teams (Warriors, Broncos, Sharks, Penrith), instead we are 6 points behind three teams and 2 points behind the Tigers even

[Botman]

And if we didnt give away 8 (is it 4 games we've given away or 3) points on our own misgivings we'd be right there too.
Let's stop pretending we're not the owners of our own destiny.

[Wiki Special]

I heard an interview with Bernard Sutton on the weeken where all he would admit was that the Touchie erred in raising his flag. No mention of the part his brother played in allowing the on field bungle to manifest or the ludicrous nature of Patten overturning the on field call (and he didn't know about the flag - cough, Bull, cough). He thought it was correct that the Sharks centre didn't touch it.

[FuiFui BradBrad]

And if we didnt give away 8 (is it 4 games we've given away or 3) points on our own misgivings we'd be right there too.
Let's stop pretending we're not the owners of our own destiny.

You have to unblock me :p. I just posted the figures. 7 games where the margin is <4. Taking out the 3 games where the refs admitted they made bad calls, that leaves us =4th on the ladder.

Is there a petition going around to make the games 60 mins?

[raiderskater]

I heard an interview with Bernard Sutton on the weeken where all he would admit was that the Touchie erred in raising his flag. No mention of the part his brother played in allowing the on field bungle to manifest or the ludicrous nature of Patten overturning the on field call (and he didn't know about the flag - cough, bulls**t, cough). He thought it was correct that the Sharks centre didn't touch it.

Apparently he claimed that the bunker didn't see the touchie raise his flag, which if true, is beyond incompetent since, y'know, all of the Raiders were pointing at him.

[edwahu]

I saw Nathan Brown suggested bringing in Captains Challenge. I reckon he is on to something, if you were limited to a couple a game and it replaced the bunker I reckon there would be less controversy but the game would flow more. I think you'd find a lot of the angst directed at the players rather than the Refs.

[-TW-]

I saw Nathan Brown suggested bringing in Captains Challenge. I reckon he is on to something, if you were limited to a couple a game and it replaced the bunker I reckon there would be less controversy but the game would flow more. I think you'd find a lot of the angst directed at the players rather than the Refs.

Until the bunker (or it's replacement) gets a challenge wrong

[Brew]

Yeah I think Nathan Brown was open to is this weekend vs Cowboys

[edwahu]

I saw Nathan Brown suggested bringing in Captains Challenge. I reckon he is on to something, if you were limited to a couple a game and it replaced the bunker I reckon there would be less controversy but the game would flow more. I think you'd find a lot of the angst directed at the players rather than the Refs.

Until the bunker (or it's replacement) gets a challenge wrong

Yeah, but when you limit the challenges you limit the opportunities to get it wrong, and even if they make a howler you're limiting the total number of video ref calls. So at least you get a faster flowing game and refs get back to having to make more calls on the park, which was the real reason for fridays screw up.

Worth trying imo, it can't be any worse.

[Arnie]

I've done it lads... I've woken up from the anger induced coma that ruled me out of any action from Friday night.
What's been happening? is life good again?

Was it all just a terrible terrible dream?

[hiriser]

The Warriors got doubled **** as well... Smith goes high on a player, then goes the second effort when he gets up to play the ball and insanely they call it knock on Warriors.... Even at the end of the game, the ball goes back, hits the ref, and they call play on again where it clearly gave an advantage to the Storm... Should have been a scrum to the attacking side...

They need a massive clean out of all the ref management and a bunch of the refs as well. Throw big money at some from the UK, we have to do something as breading our own isn't working.

This is the thing isn't it? Year after year, it's the same teams that get ****.

It's not about technology, it's not even about introducing new rules mid year. None of these factors matter.

The only factor is the inconsistent application of rules.

Us, the cowboys, titans, warriors, and knights will never ever get a fair shake until they get a once in a generation player like Joey or JT in the team.

Teams like the dogs, saints, eels, panthers, tigers, sharks, eagles and sharks will get the odd year where the NRL will want them to do well, just to keep interest in the game going. These teams will still get the 50/50s against regional teams though.

Teams like the storm, broncs, roosters and bunnies have media influencers and hence every single year will be the ones doing the ****.

Point is the race for the premiership title and top 8 is partially pre-determined before a ball is even kicked. Metrics.

[edwahu]

5 minutes of googling shows there are papers out there for nearly every sport that demonstrate that Refs
- Favour home teams, especially when playing in front of large crowds
- Favour star players,
- Favour high profile team, especially when games are close or they are losing
- and plenty more

I don't know how bad it is in League, but I feel like there is a tendency for anything in sports to be taken to 11 with League, so I reckon it would be there for sure.

In fact, there is even one that shows State of Origin reffing is bias! Although to be fair, it does go back to the grasshopper days.

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/ ... -2012-0022