2019 Rd 15 V Eels: Game Day

[hobbsy]

The refs have been that bad at everything for that long that I seriously doubt they could pull off a targeted campaign against particular teams if they tried

[Botman]

Simple gangers
You say the raiders get more howlers than any other club in the nrl
Prove it

Define what a howler is, and then tell me how many each club in the nrl have had go against them in 2019.

I’ll even accept a small sample size of just one year. Normally I’d say you should probably have 3+ years of data to show there is a correlation and results aren’t actually random (which hot tip, they are)

Btw 50/50 on that forward pass call is an absolute **** piss take and perfectly encapsulates why I would never waste a second trying to meet your standards. That’s why I call you a crackpot. It’s a clear and blatant error, at a critical time of the game that dramatically improved our win expectancy haha

[greeneyed]

I believe the Raiders have, for many years, got more bad calls on average. It’s due to unrecognised bias. We shouldn’t be surprised by it. It is a well known phenomenon, recognised in a multitude of academic studies in reputable academic journals.

The only way the Raiders can change this is to become a “winning” or “star” team.

The people denying it... well they can crack jokes and pretend it doesn’t exist, but they’ve done absolutely nothing to actually counter the psychological studies and evidence.

The players and coaches must never focus on anything they can’t control, that includes the refereeing. It’s been good to see the team and coaches doing that this year.

And by the way, I do not think the Raiders lost because of the refereeing on the weekend. They lost due to playing bad football for 45 minutes of the match. Their errors and silly penalties. The good teams put bad calls aside and win regardless.

It is perfectly reasonable for fans and club administration to expect referees to also be held accountable for their errors, as a second ‘by the way’.

[gerg]

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.

Define 'average NRL team'?
Is anybody willing to suggest that the Broncos games are refereed in the same way as the Raiders games?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

[Botman]

In what way would you like officials to be held more accountable?
They get dropped for bad performances, miss out on incentives with rep games, their boss has a weekly video on the .com **** canning them when they screw up and the public and media commentators never **** shut up about them haha

They are the most accountable people in the game

[The Nickman]

Honestly, it appears to me that the very definite of a gangers “howler” is “refereeing decision that goes against the Canberra Raiders in a game that they lost”

Seems pretty hard for any other club to ever have howlers go against them based on the very definition of the term

[gangrenous]

Simple gangers
You say the raiders get more howlers than any other club in the nrl
Prove it

Define what a howler is, and then tell me how many each club in the nrl have had go against them in 2019.

I didn’t say they received the most. I said they have more go against them than they benefit from.

So you just want me to review the whole season? Oh sure, got time for that. I listed the four worst decisions for the last year. What you got that compares?

[gangrenous]

The refs have been that bad at everything for that long that I seriously doubt they could pull off a targeted campaign against particular teams if they tried

I don’t think anyone believes there is a conscious organised campaign.

[Botman]

I just want you to prove your claim with some evidence that isnt your gut feel and anecdotal evidence. That's all.

I dont have anything and havent looked for it because i accept bad decisions sometimes go against the Raiders, as they do every team, and some years you might be very unlucky and get the rough end more than not, and other years you might be lucky and get less. I dont really feel the need to prove that they're not out to get us. haha.

[Botman]

BTW where has this chat been for the last month?
Is it just that in the month of June we won 3 on the trot and it's a stunning coincidence that we got good officiating and as soon as we lost suddenly there was bad officiating again?

Forget the evidence for a second, help walk me through why we always have this discussion after a loss and never a win? Why is it no one is unhappy with officiating when we win, but literally every time we lose there is some major problems?

Just walk though that coincidence for me and make me understand that

[hobbsy]

My biggest issue with the unconscious bias idea is that a lot of the calls that people complain about can seemingly only be explained by being missed entirely. Take for example the knock on on the weekend, if the referee has seen that and decided not to call it then it's a very conscious decision. Obviously this is just an example but I would think that this sort of bias is more likely to affect 50/50 calls or penalty counts from things like offside or **** infringements which occur often and are called fairly inconsistently. Where you will see bias in these calls is when referees are looking to square up the count, which we have definitely been the beneficiary of. I just think that sort of unconscious bias really isnt that prevalent. If you consider the stats for penalties awarded and conceded over the season we are in the top 4 for both, with a higher amount awarded, so correct calls or not it seems to go our way a fair bit too. Incidentally, the Storm, Broncos and Roosters (the big clubs) are 12th, 13th and 14th for penalties awarded.

[Johno]

Terepo swinging arm hits Rapana across the nose, blood coming from the nose.
Plenty of time for Video ref to tell ref to send him off or the very least 10 min sin bin.
But no..
Our winger goes off HIA, causing shuffle to our backline and Terepo stays on and plays quite strong.
Terepo facing 3 or 4 match ban, surely cant get off!
So, if he gets 3 match ban aren't they saying he was guilty of the head high, yet couldnt see it at the time of the incident?
3 match ban and the next 3 teams may benefit while we lost the game and I 100% feel this was pivotal.
Blunder/howler...yes

If Vid ref can judicate on a knock on so long before a try or an obstruction, surely they can rule on foul play?
Its not that hard surely.

[greeneyed]

They can make a recommendation to the referee on foul play. It was reportable... and they should have said it was serious enough, at least for a sin bin.

The panel on NRL 360 tonight said they couldn't believe how George Burgess stayed on the field after the eye gouge on Robbie Farah... nor how the same bunker team cover the Raiders V Eels... and the panel couldn't believe that Terepo remained on the field either.

[Botman]

Terepo swinging arm hits Rapana across the nose, blood coming from the nose.
Plenty of time for Video ref to tell ref to send him off or the very least 10 min sin bin.
But no..
Our winger goes off HIA, causing shuffle to our backline and Terepo stays on and plays quite strong.
Terepo facing 3 or 4 match ban, surely cant get off!
So, if he gets 3 match ban aren't they saying he was guilty of the head high, yet couldnt see it at the time of the incident?
3 match ban and the next 3 teams may benefit while we lost the game and I 100% feel this was pivotal.
Blunder/howler...yes

If Vid ref can judicate on a knock on so long before a try or an obstruction, surely they can rule on foul play?
Its not that hard surely.

Wonderful.
Hudson Young was sidelined 5 weeks for an eye gouge. Was not sin binned.
A game we won by 2 points, the next 5 teams we played benefited. The Bulldogs did not.

You see how this works. You see how it's give with one hand, take with the other? We won a game we may have lost if Young was sin binned. We lost a game we have won if Terepo was sin binned.

[gerg]

They can make a recommendation to the referee on foul play. It was reportable... and they should have said it was serious enough, at least for a sin bin.

The panel on NRL 360 tonight said they couldn't believe how George Burgess stayed on the field after the eye gouge on George Burgess... nor how the same bunker team cover the Raiders V Eels... and the panel couldn't believe that Terepo remained on the field either.

It's kind of ironic that players are more likely to be sinbinned for tackles around the legs than across the chops.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

[Pete Cash]

The knock on is nothing. The ref just missed it. No bias there. That is human error and really we should have done better to shut the play down anyway.

There is some argument that Terepo should have been sin binned. It was pretty rough and they changed the rules to allow it and then did it for a few weeks before forgetting about it. It also stopped our momentum after a quick tap which is annoying. Rapana was probably gunning for a quick play the ball.

I would look more towards Parra giving us an **** kicking in the forwards from about the 30th minute until the end of the game as the cause of the loss.

[Botman]

it's really difficult for me to give a **** about a knock on when the game was effective won and lost when not 1, not 2, but 3 players managed to let Mitchell **** Moses. All 85kgs of him, waltz through us for try.

We've got some issues to address, and they are all self inflicted.

[gangrenous]

BTW where has this chat been for the last month?
Is it just that in the month of June we won 3 on the trot and it's a stunning coincidence that we got good officiating and as soon as we lost suddenly there was bad officiating again?

This is why the conversation started. Seems your mate missed it.

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

[gangrenous]

My biggest issue with the unconscious bias idea is that a lot of the calls that people complain about can seemingly only be explained by being missed entirely. Take for example the knock on on the weekend, if the referee has seen that and decided not to call it then it's a very conscious decision. Obviously this is just an example but I would think that this sort of bias is more likely to affect 50/50 calls or penalty counts from things like offside or **** infringements which occur often and are called fairly inconsistently.

Completely agree with this part. That’s why I mentioned above that decision is not a howler in my mind.

A howler is two referees allowing play to continue while a touch judge raises his flag and the video ref ignoring it on numerous replays.

I disagree that penalty counts being even is necessarily a good indicator of no bias. I think that’s impacted by team strategies.

[Botman]

BTW where has this chat been for the last month?
Is it just that in the month of June we won 3 on the trot and it's a stunning coincidence that we got good officiating and as soon as we lost suddenly there was bad officiating again?

This is why the conversation started. Seems your mate missed it.

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

So he posted it apropos to nothing?
Na, he was responding to a post, a post which appealed to you crackpottery, Tinman.

[greeneyed]

No one is saying a single incorrect knock on call is unconscious bias.

[gangrenous]

BTW where has this chat been for the last month?
Is it just that in the month of June we won 3 on the trot and it's a stunning coincidence that we got good officiating and as soon as we lost suddenly there was bad officiating again?

This is why the conversation started. Seems your mate missed it.

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

So he posted it apropos to nothing?
Na, he was responding to a post, a post which appealed to you crackpottery, Tinman.

He responded to greeneyed producing a news summary of what the NRL announced. No commentary from anyone else.

But you’re not great with dealing in facts are you?

[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.

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.)

You are spot on for my opinion RD. Greedysmurf, I have the opinion that the players should determine the outcome of matches not some 'fixed' object. I think in 2019 there is also the player welfare issue of having fast moving humans trying to avoid the immovable objects that are goal posts. So far this year we have seen Papa denied a try due to goal posts he ran into. We have seen on the weekend Fergo tackled back into goal posts which prevented the good work of defenders getting an opposition player back in goal.

I think the posts should be behind the dead ball line where they are unlikely to affect play. Let the players decide the outcome of matches.

[RedRaider]

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.

I like your thinking on this Julian. I think the perpetrator should be should be 'off' for the time the player is in the HIA and the perpetrator cannot be replaced. Having a side down a man will, imo, clean up a lot of these calls. I googled Terepo to see what the likely penalty he could receive is. There is the man in red looking directly at the Terepo swinging arm on Rapa. The Raiders have a player affected for the rest of the match due to foul play and the Eels are allowed to continue unaffected, other than a penalty. If it is clear foul play which causes a player to go to the HIA then the perpetrator goes off for the same length of time and is not allowed to be replaced.

I do not agree that it should be like for like ie a Half back for a wounded Half back. Players who have done nothing wrong should in no way face a penalty imo. If an entire team is 'made to pay' by being a player down for an indefinite time then I think these 'high shot' incidents will be reduced.

[Sid]

I think there's some merrit in the previously mentioned idea of having the offending player 'permanently subbed off', so that the offending player takes no part of the rest of the game. The offending team keep 13 on the field, but are reduced to 3 interchange players and costing them an interchange. This would also help the referee to keep control of the game to reduce the tension / further scuffles by taking the instigator off the field. Though this would probably cause some controversy of whether a player deserved to be binned, sent off or permanently subbed off, a bit like there is now with the arguments between penalty tries/sin bins for professional fouls in other instances.

The argument could be made that the correct rules are currently in place, they're just not being enforced. We've only had something like 2 players sent off in the last 2 years. I'm not sure what time of the game they happened, but I have a hunch they were perhaps towards the end of the game. Adrian Morley was sent off 12 seconds into a rep game, the rules haven't changed, but I don't think we'd see the same result if that were to happen today.

Burgess is suspended for 9 games, meaning the Sea Eagles, Cowboys, Dragons, Sharks, Storm, Bulldogs, Broncos, Warriors and Roosters benefit from that, not Robbie or the Tigers who were on the end of the offense. Even worse for teams who have had to take a player off for the foul play which we saw happen a couple of times in the round just gone.

I guess the main issue we're all trying to solve here is having a player penalised during the same game they caused the offense. This especially would be the case for a Grand Final. It'd suck to see a star player knocked out and taken out of a grand final due to foul play, for the offender to continue playing the Grand Final and miss out on a few trial matches and season opening games the following season.

TL;DR a player should be penalised more during the same game they caused the offense

[greeneyed]

That's a good idea Sid.

[greeneyed]

Brits Down Under: Sutton’s standout stats, Canberra suffer setback: https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/br ... r-setback/

Mostly about Round 15...

[Ruben Daley]

What if:

1) The ball-carrier was falling and the tackler tried to wrap him up but got him high and completely knocked him out.

2) The ball-carrier was unprotected and the tackler swung his arm hard a la Terepo and smashed the runner’s head but the player was fit to return after fifteen minutes.

In most of the proposed scenarios above, Tackler 1 would be gone for the match and Tackler 2 would miss just fifteen minutes.

I like the idea of punishing the tackler in the actual game he did the offence but I don’t think it would work in real life due to the variables. I also think you’d see no name players “fail” their HIAs if the tackler was a star player.

“Luke Bateman just got hit high by Cameron Munster, it was only soft but - what’s this? - the Raiders doctor has immediately ruled Bateman unfit to return for the rest of the game.”

[Sid]

In my case the idea of having the offending player 'permanently subbed off' wouldn't so much be reliant on if/when the fouled player can return. I haven't worked out the nitty gritty of when it would be used, but from what I understand there used to be a 5 minute sin bin for lesser professional fouls and 10 minute sin bins for bigger professional fouls? One possibility is that "Permanently Subbed Off' could be for lower grade foul play and Send Off's could be used for higher level fouls, though there would need to be a clear distinction for when one is used compared to the other so to remove controversy when one is awarded and not the other.

[The Nickman]

They can make a recommendation to the referee on foul play. It was reportable... and they should have said it was serious enough, at least for a sin bin.

The panel on NRL 360 tonight said they couldn't believe how George Burgess stayed on the field after the eye gouge on George Burgess... nor how the same bunker team cover the Raiders V Eels... and the panel couldn't believe that Terepo remained on the field either.

To be fair, nobody really should have to leave the field for eye gouging themselves.

[Botman]

I think there's some merrit in the previously mentioned idea of having the offending player 'permanently subbed off', so that the offending player takes no part of the rest of the game. The offending team keep 13 on the field, but are reduced to 3 interchange players and costing them an interchange. This would also help the referee to keep control of the game to reduce the tension / further scuffles by taking the instigator off the field. Though this would probably cause some controversy of whether a player deserved to be binned, sent off or permanently subbed off, a bit like there is now with the arguments between penalty tries/sin bins for professional fouls in other instances.

The argument could be made that the correct rules are currently in place, they're just not being enforced. We've only had something like 2 players sent off in the last 2 years. I'm not sure what time of the game they happened, but I have a hunch they were perhaps towards the end of the game. Adrian Morley was sent off 12 seconds into a rep game, the rules haven't changed, but I don't think we'd see the same result if that were to happen today.

Burgess is suspended for 9 games, meaning the Sea Eagles, Cowboys, Dragons, Sharks, Storm, Bulldogs, Broncos, Warriors and Roosters benefit from that, not Robbie or the Tigers who were on the end of the offense. Even worse for teams who have had to take a player off for the foul play which we saw happen a couple of times in the round just gone.

I guess the main issue we're all trying to solve here is having a player penalised during the same game they caused the offense. This especially would be the case for a Grand Final. It'd suck to see a star player knocked out and taken out of a grand final due to foul play, for the offender to continue playing the Grand Final and miss out on a few trial matches and season opening games the following season.

TL;DR a player should be penalised more during the same game they caused the offense

yeah i like that idea, a more logical and better version of my earlier idea

[Botman]

But you’re not great with dealing in facts are you?

Im much better at dealing with gut feels and then demanding everyone else do the work to prove my crackpot theories if im honest.

[papabear]

Was the missed knock on really a worse decision then the penalty for tackling without the ball.

Since when do you get penalised for tackling a bloke who knocks on because the hit happened after he bumbled the ball. IMO that was a way way more criminal decision that was so obvious it was just beyond belief.

[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.

Define 'average NRL team'?
Is anybody willing to suggest that the Broncos games are refereed in the same way as the Raiders games?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Average NRL team = not the Broncos

[gangrenous]

Btw 50/50 on that forward pass call is an absolute **** piss take and perfectly encapsulates why I would never waste a second trying to meet your standards. That’s why I call you a crackpot. It’s a clear and blatant error, at a critical time of the game that dramatically improved our win expectancy haha

While we’re on the topic of things pigman gets wrong. Let’s revisit this “howler”



Image one ball is passed from behind the line



Ball caught in front of the line.

Touchy perfectly in line.

I know we’ve got some momentum here, but... that’s a 50/50 call based on the television evidence.

Does anyone else think that’s a howler of a decision? Anyone? Comparable to the Sharks fiasco where three separate officials made errors including the one viewing slow motion replays?