2019 Rd 15 V Eels: Game Day

[Botman]

Let it go Donny..

Move on..

I can see this backfire when we lose a player for 10 for a similar tackle on the back of Don’s comments.

That's not a backfire. That would be a good thing. This isn't... or at least shouldnt be about what is good for the canberra raiders or a single loss against Parra

Personally i think there should be something else. I dont know if a sin bin is fair for accidential shots (though admittedly Terepo's might have been reckless more than accidental, the intent was there for sure)

the trouble with the blanket sin bin is that you have total accidental shots, with a falling player, that results in a HIA and now it's a sin bin? So there has to be some differentiating imo

maybe and im just thinking as i go here, the determination needs to be between if the shot was careless vs reckless, and maybe a careless shot that results in a HIA means the guilty player is subbed off for another (thus losing an interchange, and in the case of someone not a forward, requiring some shuffling)... that feels like at least it's a harsher punishment than just a penalty.
IN the case of reckless, which i think Terepo's probably was, a straight sin bin is used.

[RedRaider]

While we are talking about improvements to the game, I'd once more like to get on my hobby horse about the goal posts. About the 71st minute Fergo is trying to run the ball out and the Raiders tackle him back towards the Eels in goal. What stops him going back there, the goal posts. Refs has no choice but to call tackled, but if the goal posts are not there it is a line drop out to the Eels. Opportunity lost for the Raiders. The goal posts should be behind the dead ball line so they can play no part in the outcome of matches. Earlier this year Papa was denied a try in a close match because of the immovable goal posts which helped the defenders. The goal posts should be moved to a place where they cannot affect the play.

[gangrenous]

It's a bloody outrage... gangers, quick, add it to the list!!

It’s not **** great is it? Combined with a no sin bin on Terepo minutes earlier which was a huge momentum changer. Add that to the non-sin bin on Burgess earlier this season and we see why Raiders are 11-5 for single man sin bins versus their opponents over the past few years.

Let me know when you start the list of clangers that favoured the Raiders. Because it should be equally lengthy... and it isn’t.

But by all means let another case of poor refereeing against the Raiders be a good time for you to crow like a **** and highlight the fact that for all your bluster your argument is built on nothing but a pretence of impartiality and superiority. You’ve gone full Rodman on this.

[The Nickman]

It's a bloody outrage... gangers, quick, add it to the list!!

It’s not **** great is it? Combined with a no sin bin on Terepo minutes earlier which was a huge momentum changer. Add that to the non-sin bin on Burgess earlier this season and we see why Raiders are 11-5 for single man sin bins versus their opponents over the past few years.

Let me know when you start the list of clangers that favoured the Raiders. Because it should be equally lengthy... and it isn’t.

But by all means let another case of poor refereeing against the Raiders be a good time for you to crow like a **** and highlight the fact that for all your bluster your argument is built on nothing but a pretence of impartiality and superiority. You’ve gone full Rodman on this.

Hahahahaha what an amazing response. Someone has gone *checks notes* full Rodman here, and hot tip buddy, it ain’t me

Sensational stuff

[gangrenous]

And there we go. Another post from Nickman with *checks notes* nothing of value to contribute to the argument or discussion. Just ridicule and condescension for someone else.

[The Nickman]

Haha go and have a lie down, gangy. You’ve completely lost the plot on this one, your opinion is just rambling nonsense, bordering on irrelevance

If you genuinely believe we lost that game due to the referees you’re seriously deranged now

[gangrenous]

With that post you have unlocked your 100th “Ad hominem” and “Straw man”, collect your badges to sew onto your blanket at the “Being a ****” desk. You obviously know where to find it.

[Greedysmurf]

While we are talking about improvements to the game, I'd once more like to get on my hobby horse about the goal posts. About the 71st minute Fergo is trying to run the ball out and the Raiders tackle him back towards the Eels in goal. What stops him going back there, the goal posts. Refs has no choice but to call tackled, but if the goal posts are not there it is a line drop out to the Eels. Opportunity lost for the Raiders. The goal posts should be behind the dead ball line so they can play no part in the outcome of matches. Earlier this year Papa was denied a try in a close match because of the immovable goal posts which helped the defenders. The goal posts should be moved to a place where they cannot affect the play.

It would however also remove the grubber kick at the posts play. Not sure if that’s a positive or not.

Are you suggesting moving the current goalposts back to the deadball line, or converting to NFL style goalposts?

[Ruben Daley]

While we are talking about improvements to the game, I'd once more like to get on my hobby horse about the goal posts. About the 71st minute Fergo is trying to run the ball out and the Raiders tackle him back towards the Eels in goal. What stops him going back there, the goal posts. Refs has no choice but to call tackled, but if the goal posts are not there it is a line drop out to the Eels. Opportunity lost for the Raiders. The goal posts should be behind the dead ball line so they can play no part in the outcome of matches. Earlier this year Papa was denied a try in a close match because of the immovable goal posts which helped the defenders. The goal posts should be moved to a place where they cannot affect the play.

It would however also remove the grubber kick at the posts play. Not sure if that’s a positive or not.

Are you suggesting moving the current goalposts back to the deadball line, or converting to NFL style goalposts?

Pretty sure RR doesn’t like the effect on kicks either.

I’ve got to say I like the variable it adds to the tackled player like in the Fergo incident (less so for the Papa one) but it’s great for the kick element. I’d much rather that uncertainty and the way it can be exploited by talented kickers than not.

American sport tends to try to remove variables but I like them. Probably why I like cricket pitches that differ depending on the ground.

But I can also see RR’s point.

(Apologies if I’ve represented you incorrectly too, by the way.)

[julian87]

I’d like to get peoples thoughts on what I reckon could resolve the matter of the Ratana incident. This weekend I also had money on the cowboys who I think would have won if not for Morgan going down due to foul play. Normally when this sort of thing happens it is an important player. A half, fullback or winger making a play get hit late and fail or have to do an hia. Often it is a **** forward making the play.

If it is foul play sending someone for an HIA I think the team affected should be able to choose be able to choose someone to sit off while their player is off. 2 choices: offender or the very opposite number. So halfback for halfback, fullback for fullback or opposing winger/centre etc or the player who committed the foul. I thinks that’s harsher and more just considering the HIA protocols currently in place.

I reckon in a semi final if we had Dunamis Lui knock out Cameron Munster we’d rather play with 12 than Wighton sit out with a replacement other than him allowed. And that’s where I’m at atm.

[Botman]

I posted my adlib idea above. And the more i think of it, the more i think it's not bad.
I think it should be referee/vid ref should determine if it's careless or reckless, if it's careless the offender gets subbed off for 10 minutes, the team can pick who they replace him with... so it hurts them in terms of their bench management.
And if it's reckless, then by all means, sin bin time (Terepo incident would be a sin bin imo)

But the trouble is then it's a grey area of interpretation. Which isnt ideal.

[Botman]

With that post you have unlocked your 100th “Ad hominem” and “Straw man”, collect your badges to sew onto your blanket at the “Being a ****” desk. You obviously know where to find it.

And congrats!
You've unlocked the "1000th Claim of Straw-man" achievement
You can collect your reward at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Dont worry, you can discard the tin foil hat, and read it without concerns they're stealing your thoughts
I mean... they are, but your thoughts are generally thought as unusable so as discarded by MLB

[gangrenous]

If you genuinely believe we lost that game due to the referees you’re seriously deranged now

Ok pigman. Point me to where I said this. Here is your straw man. Can’t actually refute what I said about the refereeing, so have a crack at another angle I haven’t mentioned.

I am arguing that the refereeing was poor again. I am arguing that there are inconsistencies in the way the rules are applied to the Raiders and their opponents. I deliberately didn’t discuss it in the context of the outcome of this game because an outcome being contributed to by two factors that are impossible to separate (referees and Raiders performance) is beyond what you and Rickman can handle.

[gerg]

I posted my adlib idea above. And the more i think of it, the more i think it's not bad.
I think it should be referee/vid ref should determine if it's careless or reckless, if it's careless the offender gets subbed off for 10 minutes, the team can pick who they replace him with... so it hurts them in terms of their bench management.
And if it's reckless, then by all means, sin bin time (Terepo incident would be a sin bin imo)

But the trouble is then it's a grey area of interpretation. Which isnt ideal.

I think the refs struggle too much with interpretation in grey areas already without adding another. I don't think they get the dominant/surrender interpretation correct now so I don't know how they will differentiate between a careless or reckless tackle.
Just on the Sims one, I didn't think it was that bad at all. Not late, he was wrapping his arms but made contact with Morgan's head with his chest. Mostly to do with him being taller than Morgan. What is he meant to do? You see much worse tackles every single weekend.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

[hobbsy]

This weekend was a perfect illustration of how the Raiders are in the exact same boat as every other team when it comes to referee howlers. There was a bunch of terrible calls across the entire round, the Panthers probably copped the worst of it and yet still managed to win.

[gangrenous]

As I’ve said before, refereeing in other matches is largely irrelevant. The Raiders receive no comfort knowing other teams get dudded with bad decisions also. No one is saying refs are perfect outside of Raiders games.

Can someone tell me some times when the referees boss has come out afterwards and admitted they made significant errors to the Raiders opponent?

[Botman]

If you genuinely believe we lost that game due to the referees you’re seriously deranged now

Ok pigman. Point me to where I said this. Here is your straw man. Can’t actually refute what I said about the refereeing, so have a crack at another angle I haven’t mentioned.

I am arguing that the refereeing was poor again. I am arguing that there are inconsistencies in the way the rules are applied to the Raiders and their opponents. I deliberately didn’t discuss it in the context of the outcome of this game because an outcome being contributed to by two factors that are impossible to separate (referees and Raiders performance) is beyond what you and Rickman can handle.

What the **** are you talking about? Rickman never said you said that. He said "if you genuinely believe"

and certainly given your posting history on officials, questioning your belief about the impact these calls had is a fair and genuine statement to make.
And fwiw, you are deranged

[Botman]

Can someone tell me some times when the referees boss has come out afterwards and admitted they made significant errors to the Raiders opponent?

How about you do the work yourself
What are we? Your research assistants? VINTAGE Gangers, stating a premise based on his gut and wants everyone else to do the work to disprove it!

Graham Annesley has a weekly video on NRL.com discussing key decisions, go and watch them yourself and tally up who's on the stiff end of calls Annesley thinks is wrong.

[zim]

What a game that was. We got a real dose of the old Wighton mindset where errors leads to trying harder, which leads to more errors. Had to have a drop eventually. Just a shame the way it happened. He did some good work later on to try and drag it back too but it was gone by then.
Simonsson went down the try hard rabbit hole with Wighton as well. He'll learn a lot from that. Looks great for the future.

You'd hope we had enough quality to pick up the slack but all that happened was our insides got lazy in defense as the errors started to pile up.
The whole pack was down on effort.
The performance really should see some changes but they probably get a week to turn it around considering how we've been travelling.
Whitehead was pretty off and Havili needs a bit of a rocket up him. Falling back on the old mindset of "once the ball has gone past me my job is done."
Kris needs to get more involved but the work he did do was very solid.

[greeneyed]

By the numbers: Raiders v Eels: https://www.raiders.com.au/news/2019/07 ... rs-v-eels/ (Most of the team stats are attributed to the other team, so beware!)

Raiders welcome Smithwick family: https://www.raiders.com.au/news/2019/07 ... ck-family/

(Nice video)

[yeh raiders]

And there we go. Another post from Nickman with *checks notes* nothing of value to contribute to the argument or discussion. Just ridicule and condescension for someone else.

I’m convinced it’s a virus that GE has uploaded for controversy. And this is the formula that Botman is programmed to follow:

Step 1. IF thread does not equal opened, THEN open thread.
Step 2. Attack and vomit all over thread.
Step 3. Close thread.

REPEAT UNTIL all threads are drowning in vomit.

[dubby]

Botman

Sent from my SM-G960F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[zim]

And there we go. Another post from Nickman with *checks notes* nothing of value to contribute to the argument or discussion. Just ridicule and condescension for someone else.

I’m convinced it’s a virus that GE has uploaded for controversy. And this is the formula that Botman is programmed to follow:

Step 1. IF thread does not equal opened, THEN open thread.
Step 2. Attack and vomit all over thread.
Step 3. Close thread.

REPEAT UNTIL all threads are drowning in vomit.

It's missing a *checks notes* step.

[greeneyed]

What’s it got to do with me?!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Nickman]

And there we go. Another post from Nickman with *checks notes* nothing of value to contribute to the argument or discussion. Just ridicule and condescension for someone else.

I’m convinced it’s a virus that GE has uploaded for controversy. And this is the formula that Botman is programmed to follow:

Step 1. IF thread does not equal opened, THEN open thread.
Step 2. Attack and vomit all over thread.
Step 3. Close thread.

REPEAT UNTIL all threads are drowning in vomit.

SOSF

[dubby]

I'm sure Lucy and nickman had a baby and called it rickman, and the baby looked at me

Sent from my SM-G960F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[gangrenous]

What the **** are you talking about? Rickman never said you said that. He said "if you genuinely believe"

and certainly given your posting history on officials, questioning your belief about the impact these calls had is a fair and genuine statement to make.

It’s not surprising that you don’t see how in a discussion focussing on whether the Raiders more commonly experience poor refereeing, trying to shift that conversation to somewhere else you think you can win the argument more readily (the referees caused the Raiders to lose that game) is nothing more than a debating tactic.

Can someone tell me some times when the referees boss has come out afterwards and admitted they made significant errors to the Raiders opponent?

How about you do the work yourself
What are we? Your research assistants? VINTAGE Gangers, stating a premise based on his gut and wants everyone else to do the work to disprove it!

Graham Annesley has a weekly video on NRL.com discussing key decisions, go and watch them yourself and tally up who's on the stiff end of calls Annesley thinks is wrong.

Here’s what I’d like.

I don’t care if you’re unwilling to do the full stat breakdown, I don’t have the desire to do it either.

What I do care about is you and Nickman abusing me and others who are at least able to provide some circumstantial evidence (list of howlers - a number of which have had Annesley apologies, sin bin stats above). If you were as right as you think you are you should be able to identify similar circumstantial evidence to back your side. Since you either can’t or won’t, your argument isn’t strong enough to dismiss others out of hand. So what I’d like is for you to back up your side of the argument with something more than your own pompous opinion, or **** off.

[The Nickman]

Wait, wait... when have I ever abused you, gangers??

Good **** grief, getting a bit precious now.

[The Nickman]

Haha honestly, if I read back over this "discussion", there's only one guy throwing out the "abuse", pal.

And that's fine, it doesn't upset me, I'd resort to abusive tactics too if the line I was continually towing was so completely absurd and I couldn't handle people pointing out how completely absurd it was.

[gangrenous]

If it’s absurd you can find something to support your argument. I’m all ears.

[The Nickman]

Righto, and then you prove to me that the flying spaghetti monster in space doesn't exist.

[Botman]

So what I’d like is for you to back up your side of the argument with something more than your own pompous opinion, or **** off.

And as soon as you provide evidence to support your claim that the raiders are subjected to more incorrect calls than every other of the 15 clubs, I’ll be more than happy to counter with my evidence.

I’m not in the business of wasting time delivering evidence to crackpots. I’ve seen how that goes and the crackpots just dismiss evidence against their theory (as you have done re the forward pass in the roosters game) and continue to promote their anecdotal evidence as if it’s some smoking gun. They never listen, and I have no reason to think you’ll be any different

So we’re at an impasse. You can’t provide legitimate evidence to support your claims that the raiders are targeting by officials unfairly and I’m not remotely interested in wasting time proving you’re a crackpot when laughing and cracking jokes is more fun! Haha

So you can keep screaming into the wind, and I’ll keep cracking jokes.

[gangrenous]

Yep, bias in referees is as disprovable as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Give it a go. Find some examples where Annesley apologised to Raiders opponents, or something else to give your side some weight.

[gangrenous]

So what I’d like is for you to back up your side of the argument with something more than your own pompous opinion, or **** off.

And as soon as you provide evidence to support your claim that the raiders are subjected to more incorrect calls than every other of the 15 clubs, I’ll be more than happy to counter with my evidence.

I’m not in the business of wasting time delivering evidence to crackpots. I’ve seen how that goes and the crackpots just dismiss evidence against their theory (as you have done re the forward pass in the roosters game) and continue to promote their anecdotal evidence as if it’s some smoking gun. They never listen, and I have no reason to think you’ll be any different

So we’re at an impasse. You can’t provide legitimate evidence to support your claims that the raiders are targeting by officials unfairly and I’m not remotely interested in wasting time proving you’re a crackpot when laughing and cracking jokes is more fun! Haha

So you can keep screaming into the wind, and I’ll keep cracking jokes.

You’re just not in the business of backing up your side of an argument with anything factual at all in my experience.

A line ball forward pass is a howler? That isn’t even trying! The knock on by Parra in the lead up to their second try on Saturday. Bad decision - absolutely. Howler - no. It was quick, probably obscured and decision made live. A debatable forward pass is not a howler.

What evidence would you accept anyway? You leave me in the same impasse you argue I leave you.

[Northern Raider]

I don't believe the Raiders get any more bad calls than your average NRL team.

I do believe we got the rough end of the refereeing pineapple against the Eels on the weekend.

I also believe those decisions didn't cost us the game. It was the players that did that.