Re: Are we premiership contenders?
Posted: August 13, 2019, 10:12 am
This thread is now way off topic. The title is "Are we premiership contenders?"
The Canberra Raiders Supporters Forum
https://thegh.com.au/forum/
I feel like we'd probably be considered more premiership contenders if that Latrell Mitchell try had've been disallowed and we'd won, however I think they got the decision right in the end.
That's exactly what I mean.The Rickman wrote: ↑August 13, 2019, 10:05 amHonestly, to me this is the most important part of the whole discussion and my biggest gripe about the video ref. The on-field ref called No-Try, the fact we're still debating it today means it's a 50/50 call, so it should have stood as a No Try.GreenMachine wrote: ↑August 13, 2019, 9:56 am I could live with it, if the on field ref made the same call as the video ref, but the fact that it was reversed on review tells me it wasn't a straight forward call.
Video refs should only overturn on CLEAR black and white decisions, if there's any grey whatsoever, GO WITH THE ON-FIELD REF. I can at least always cop that, and I can cop it a LOT more than the video seemingly overturning on a whim.
I'm someone else!Hazza wrote: ↑August 13, 2019, 11:38 am Agree with what someone else said, that Teddy was the difference. Reverse the fullbacks we win. Simple as that. And that's not having a go at CNK. He really does need to develop a passing game though. Was bugger all in that game, if anything I'm more confident we do something in the semis now then I was before the game.
On the Tupou try, I thought it was a try for sure, CNK wasn't impeded in any way, shape or form, if anything he jumps over Tupou. If that was us and they didn't give that I'd have been fuming.
Great minds son. That try assist scoop off the ground and cutout pass in 1 motion for Tupou was ridiculous, and the Keary bomb for Tupou was indefensible as well. Thats 12 points innit. There's sfa you can do about either of those tries. If it's gonna take pieces of play like that to beat us well... fair enough.The Rickman wrote: ↑August 13, 2019, 11:39 amI'm someone else!Hazza wrote: ↑August 13, 2019, 11:38 am Agree with what someone else said, that Teddy was the difference. Reverse the fullbacks we win. Simple as that. And that's not having a go at CNK. He really does need to develop a passing game though. Was bugger all in that game, if anything I'm more confident we do something in the semis now then I was before the game.
On the Tupou try, I thought it was a try for sure, CNK wasn't impeded in any way, shape or form, if anything he jumps over Tupou. If that was us and they didn't give that I'd have been fuming.
One thing about the cut out pass for the try. It was a bit of a speculator and came off that time. Fairly sure he tried something similar a couple of other times and the ball went into touch. Looks brilliant when it works. Not so much when it doesn't. Comes back to risk vs reward.Hazza wrote: ↑August 13, 2019, 11:50 amGreat minds son. That try assist scoop off the ground and cutout pass in 1 motion for Tupou was ridiculous, and the Keary bomb for Tupou was indefensible as well. Thats 12 points innit. There's sfa you can do about either of those tries. If it's gonna take pieces of play like that to beat us well... fair enough.The Rickman wrote: ↑August 13, 2019, 11:39 amI'm someone else!Hazza wrote: ↑August 13, 2019, 11:38 am Agree with what someone else said, that Teddy was the difference. Reverse the fullbacks we win. Simple as that. And that's not having a go at CNK. He really does need to develop a passing game though. Was bugger all in that game, if anything I'm more confident we do something in the semis now then I was before the game.
On the Tupou try, I thought it was a try for sure, CNK wasn't impeded in any way, shape or form, if anything he jumps over Tupou. If that was us and they didn't give that I'd have been fuming.
He's made an art form of it....and it often goes well beyond the first few days of the week.
Well yeah, you're right. That's sort of my point though. If he can keep executing plays like that in the finals well we dip our hat. But there'll be days when it doesn't come off. Just little pieces of brilliance like that that's the difference at present. Bugger all in it apart from that. Thought we had them covered in the middle. They did have Taukeiaho out admittedly.Northern Raider wrote: ↑August 13, 2019, 12:04 pmOne thing about the cut out pass for the try. It was a bit of a speculator and came off that time. Fairly sure he tried something similar a couple of other times and the ball went into touch. Looks brilliant when it works. Not so much when it doesn't. Comes back to risk vs reward.Hazza wrote: ↑August 13, 2019, 11:50 amGreat minds son. That try assist scoop off the ground and cutout pass in 1 motion for Tupou was ridiculous, and the Keary bomb for Tupou was indefensible as well. Thats 12 points innit. There's sfa you can do about either of those tries. If it's gonna take pieces of play like that to beat us well... fair enough.The Rickman wrote: ↑August 13, 2019, 11:39 amI'm someone else!Hazza wrote: ↑August 13, 2019, 11:38 am Agree with what someone else said, that Teddy was the difference. Reverse the fullbacks we win. Simple as that. And that's not having a go at CNK. He really does need to develop a passing game though. Was bugger all in that game, if anything I'm more confident we do something in the semis now then I was before the game.
On the Tupou try, I thought it was a try for sure, CNK wasn't impeded in any way, shape or form, if anything he jumps over Tupou. If that was us and they didn't give that I'd have been fuming.
I was a bit disappointed in the latter part of the game that we stopped pounding them up the middle. It's what got us to the lead after being behind early and no reason to believe it wouldn't happen again late in the game. I felt there was a bit too much 'catch up' mentality in play, which wasn't that effective against a discipline Roosters defensive line.Hazza wrote: ↑August 13, 2019, 12:25 pmWell yeah, you're right. That's sort of my point though. If he can keep executing plays like that in the finals well we dip our hat. But there'll be days when it doesn't come off. Just little pieces of brilliance like that that's the difference at present. Bugger all in it apart from that. Thought we had them covered in the middle. They did have Taukeiaho out admittedly.Northern Raider wrote: ↑August 13, 2019, 12:04 pmOne thing about the cut out pass for the try. It was a bit of a speculator and came off that time. Fairly sure he tried something similar a couple of other times and the ball went into touch. Looks brilliant when it works. Not so much when it doesn't. Comes back to risk vs reward.Hazza wrote: ↑August 13, 2019, 11:50 amGreat minds son. That try assist scoop off the ground and cutout pass in 1 motion for Tupou was ridiculous, and the Keary bomb for Tupou was indefensible as well. Thats 12 points innit. There's sfa you can do about either of those tries. If it's gonna take pieces of play like that to beat us well... fair enough.The Rickman wrote: ↑August 13, 2019, 11:39 amI'm someone else!Hazza wrote: ↑August 13, 2019, 11:38 am Agree with what someone else said, that Teddy was the difference. Reverse the fullbacks we win. Simple as that. And that's not having a go at CNK. He really does need to develop a passing game though. Was bugger all in that game, if anything I'm more confident we do something in the semis now then I was before the game.
On the Tupou try, I thought it was a try for sure, CNK wasn't impeded in any way, shape or form, if anything he jumps over Tupou. If that was us and they didn't give that I'd have been fuming.
100% this. Tupou made no play on CNK. CNK was late in attacking the ball and landed all over Tupou, whom the ball was otherwise going to land on. I don't understand how anyone could get a penalty to the Raiders from this.PigRickman wrote: ↑August 13, 2019, 10:07 amKey point of difference, Tupou didnt place himself under CNKGreenMachine wrote: ↑August 13, 2019, 9:56 am In other sports (football and basketball for example) putting yourself in place under a flying opponent contesting a ball is a penalty). It's been the same all year with the NRL too.
CNK leaped from about 2 metres away and placed himself on top of Tupou. That's the key to this and it's why it was over turned.
CNK put himself into that position, not Tupou
It counts to my community service hours. My assigned officer believes this is vital work to help the the community overcome their paranoia and anxiety.
I don't think that because Tupou didn't attempt to tackle CNK that he didn't make a play at him. He put himself into a position to contest the ball but when he pulled out of that he made contact with CNK while he was in the air and this impacted his attempt at the catch. This is essentially what was ruled in the Storm try. That in not attempting to catch the ball but not allowing a fair attempt it was a penalty. CNK was moving towards the ball but so was Tupou so it's not as simple as who initiated the contact.Roger Kenworthy wrote: ↑August 13, 2019, 12:38 pm100% this. Tupou made no play on CNK. CNK was late in attacking the ball and landed all over Tupou, whom the ball was otherwise going to land on. I don't understand how anyone could get a penalty to the Raiders from this.PigRickman wrote: ↑August 13, 2019, 10:07 amKey point of difference, Tupou didnt place himself under CNKGreenMachine wrote: ↑August 13, 2019, 9:56 am In other sports (football and basketball for example) putting yourself in place under a flying opponent contesting a ball is a penalty). It's been the same all year with the NRL too.
CNK leaped from about 2 metres away and placed himself on top of Tupou. That's the key to this and it's why it was over turned.
CNK put himself into that position, not Tupou
Cop the knee to the face of course-TW- wrote:He turned his back not to get a knee through his face..gangrenous wrote:It’s on Daniel Tupou not to be moving backwards under the landing point of the ball with no vision for what he’s doing.
What else is he meant to do?
Sent from my CPH1831 using Tapatalk
Wouldn't be that bad. Charnze would fo sho visit him in hospital.Dr Zaius wrote: ↑August 15, 2019, 11:41 pmCop the knee to the face of course-TW- wrote:He turned his back not to get a knee through his face..gangrenous wrote:It’s on Daniel Tupou not to be moving backwards under the landing point of the ball with no vision for what he’s doing.
What else is he meant to do?
Sent from my CPH1831 using Tapatalk
Yup, my biggest criticism with the whole process. The bunker shouldn't be looking to overturn the onfield ref unless they've CLEARLY got it wrong. Seems instead the bunker is just mainly calling it how he sees it and ignoring the onfield call.Northern Raider wrote: ↑August 16, 2019, 8:52 am Reasonable point there gerg. A bit more communication from the onfield ref with the Bunker wouldn't go astray. No reason they can't have a two way conversation to help achieve the right outcome. It happens in Rugby Union to resonable effect.
Also this season it feels more like the Bunker is making a call from scratch and coming to their own conclusion. Really they should be viewing the footage for the purpose of support the live decision. If there's clear evidence to the contrary then overturn it. Othewise go with the original decision.
Yep agree that Jack went up and in and did not stop the ball. Then JC did the orthodox center defensive play and went up and in but also did not stop the ball. Teddy went through the gap to JC's left. From a tactics point of view in future what was the correct defensive play in your view?greeneyed wrote: ↑August 12, 2019, 11:11 amBut the Raiders were done for numbers by then. No matter what Croker did, there would have been a try, because Wighton ran out of the line, and went inside and came up with an ineffective tackle.RedRaider wrote: ↑August 12, 2019, 10:02 amGE, from my position in Section 55 I had a perfect view of it. JC came up and in when he did not need to. It allowed Teddy to get on his outside. If he holds his line it does not create the gap on the outside. He is a special player Teddy with abundant pace. Holding a straight line is essential in defending him. Having a staggered line is simply asking for trouble and he gave it to us.
In one of Annesleys recent addresses I'm sure he made the point that any player is able to talk to the referee, but it has to be at an appropriate point/time in the game.BJ wrote:Interestingly last week the referee was taking Plenty of advice from Roosters players other than their captain.
Last time we played the Roosters, we were told only the captain at the toss could talk to the referee.
Agreed. I think better communication solves so many issues in general.The Rickman wrote:Yup, my biggest criticism with the whole process. The bunker shouldn't be looking to overturn the onfield ref unless they've CLEARLY got it wrong. Seems instead the bunker is just mainly calling it how he sees it and ignoring the onfield call.Northern Raider wrote: ↑August 16, 2019, 8:52 am Reasonable point there gerg. A bit more communication from the onfield ref with the Bunker wouldn't go astray. No reason they can't have a two way conversation to help achieve the right outcome. It happens in Rugby Union to resonable effect.
Also this season it feels more like the Bunker is making a call from scratch and coming to their own conclusion. Really they should be viewing the footage for the purpose of support the live decision. If there's clear evidence to the contrary then overturn it. Othewise go with the original decision.
Yeah agree, I think sticking with the refs call unless it’s clearly wrong is a more acceptable position for fans.The Rickman wrote:Honestly, any decision that people end up arguing over should have just gone with the onfield ref’s call, and I’d be perfectly fine with that. They’re clearly not black and white, so stick with the original ruling
I’m much happier saying to myself “it looks like he didn’t ground it, but you really can’t tell and the onfield ref called it a try so that’s fair enough” than “it looks like he didn’t ground, but I really can’t tell so why the **** has he overturned that??”