2019 Rd 24 V Sharks: Game Day

All the news on the Canberra Raiders NRL team, all in one place

Moderator: GH Moderators

Who will win?

Raiders 13+
1
7%
Raiders 1-12
7
50%
Draw
0
No votes
Sharks 1-12
4
29%
Sharks 13+
2
14%
 
Total votes: 14

gergreg
Steve Walters
Posts: 7148
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: 2019 Rd 24 V Sharks: Game Day

Post by gergreg » September 2, 2019, 10:46 pm

greeneyed wrote:
pickles wrote:
September 2, 2019, 10:39 pm
greeneyed wrote:
gergreg wrote:
September 2, 2019, 10:08 pm
pickles wrote:I’m all for playing advantage until the end of the set for any penalty. It would make teams defending their line think twice about giving away a penalty if the team was going to get the full set as well as a penalty at the end.

That said I have never seen an advantage played for that long unless a referee was tipped off about an infringement that was missed on field.

The NRL need to do something about the way teams give away penalties when defending their line but I hardly think the second last round of the season is time to make a stand!
Totally agree Pickles, but round 24 isn't the time to start changing how the intricacies of the game are interpreted. Like I said earlier I'd be ropeable if it happens to us in the semi-finals.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Hold on, the NRL hasn’t changed their interpretation of this rule. And I don’t think they should.

The rule says that in a case of foul play, which we saw on Sunday, the referees can play advantage until the end of the set and then go back if there is none. This actually a good rule, isn’t it? See if the disadvantaged team scores, if not, they go back for the penalty. You shouldn’t allow foul play to go unpenalised.

In the case of other infringements, I like the current interpretation. Limited advantage played. Once they’ve used the advantage, that’s cancelled.

No one is talking about changing the interpretation on the eve of the finals. These are the established rules and interpretations.
I’ve said I think it is good but i can’t recall a single other time when a 3 tackle advantage has been played in a similar situation. It doesn’t mean that it isn’t following the rules but to argue that’s the current interpretation is a bit far fetched.
I don’t agree, because I’ve seen it before. And it’s not just an interpretation, it’s a black and white rule... if you haven’t watched this video from the NRL today, it explains: https://www.nrl.com/news/2019/09/02/gra ... -round-24/
When have you seen an advantage played for 2 or 3 tackles?
I've watched nearly every single NRL game this year and I haven't seen it once.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 126920
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: 2019 Rd 24 V Sharks: Game Day

Post by greeneyed » September 2, 2019, 10:59 pm

gergreg wrote:
September 2, 2019, 10:46 pm
greeneyed wrote:
pickles wrote:
September 2, 2019, 10:39 pm
greeneyed wrote:
gergreg wrote:
September 2, 2019, 10:08 pm
Totally agree Pickles, but round 24 isn't the time to start changing how the intricacies of the game are interpreted. Like I said earlier I'd be ropeable if it happens to us in the semi-finals.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Hold on, the NRL hasn’t changed their interpretation of this rule. And I don’t think they should.

The rule says that in a case of foul play, which we saw on Sunday, the referees can play advantage until the end of the set and then go back if there is none. This actually a good rule, isn’t it? See if the disadvantaged team scores, if not, they go back for the penalty. You shouldn’t allow foul play to go unpenalised.

In the case of other infringements, I like the current interpretation. Limited advantage played. Once they’ve used the advantage, that’s cancelled.

No one is talking about changing the interpretation on the eve of the finals. These are the established rules and interpretations.
I’ve said I think it is good but i can’t recall a single other time when a 3 tackle advantage has been played in a similar situation. It doesn’t mean that it isn’t following the rules but to argue that’s the current interpretation is a bit far fetched.
I don’t agree, because I’ve seen it before. And it’s not just an interpretation, it’s a black and white rule... if you haven’t watched this video from the NRL today, it explains: https://www.nrl.com/news/2019/09/02/gra ... -round-24/
When have you seen an advantage played for 2 or 3 tackles?
I've watched nearly every single NRL game this year and I haven't seen it once.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
I recall it happening before... but if you think I have a catalogue of every game situation when different rulings were made, I’m sorry, I don’t have that. I suggest you ask the NRL.

Even if it doesn’t happen frequently, so what? I hadn’t seen differential scrum penalties given for a long time... but I’ve seen those this year too.

I genuinely don’t understand why anyone could have a problem with this?

Would you like the referee to have immediately blown a penalty on Sunday? Haven’t fans all over the league been complaining about stop, start play? That the referees are unnecessarily stopping the flow of the game?

Is an immediate penalty for the late shot on Sezer preferred, allowing play to stop and defences to regroup? I don’t understand why anyone could have a problem with seeing if the attacking team can take advantage. Isn’t that what we’ve all been wanting the referees to do?
Image

User avatar
BJ
David Furner
Posts: 3775
Joined: February 2, 2007, 12:14 pm

2019 Rd 24 V Sharks: Game Day

Post by BJ » September 2, 2019, 11:10 pm

What are people going on about. 100% penalties have gone back a few tackles for foul play and it has also happened against the Raiders.

Once on Cronk when he played for Storm and I remember another against the Rabbitohs at home when we were up by about 12 early. The South’s one I couldn’t work out at the ground until I had seen the replay.

I think it happened against the Storm again and the Dragons another time as well. I think in the Dragons one, our fullback was tackled after taking a kick and it went all the way back to the tackle the previous set.

Also maybe CNK fielded a kick in his in goal this year and we went back for an earlier penalty.

gergreg
Steve Walters
Posts: 7148
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: 2019 Rd 24 V Sharks: Game Day

Post by gergreg » September 2, 2019, 11:14 pm

I don't know how many times I need to say it mate, but clearly I need to say it one more time.

I agree that it is a good interpretation by the referees, for all the reasons you, Gangers and Pickles have said.

I have seen many instances this year where an act of foul play has been committed and they have not - I repeat, they have not - handled it in this manner. Not once.

In fact in all the years I have watched rugby league, which is getting up to nearly 35 years, I have never ever seen advantage like that.

Just for a moment be a little objective. If that went the other way on the weekend you would be really annoyed. I would be.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017

gergreg
Steve Walters
Posts: 7148
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: 2019 Rd 24 V Sharks: Game Day

Post by gergreg » September 2, 2019, 11:16 pm

BJ wrote:What are people going on about. 100% penalties have gone back a few tackles for foul play and it has also happened against the Raiders.

Once on Cronk when he played for Storm and I remember another against the Rabbitohs at home when we were up by about 12 early. The South’s one I couldn’t work out at the ground until I had seen the replay.

I think it happened against the Storm again and the Dragons another time as well. I think in the Dragons one, our fullback was tackled after taking a kick and it went all the way back to the tackle the previous set.

Also maybe CNK fielded a kick in his in goal this year and we went back for an earlier penalty.
I suspect all of those incidents were a tip off from the bunker/VR.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017

Christmas Ape
Noa Nadruku
Posts: 170
Joined: April 29, 2007, 9:09 pm
Favourite Player: Ruben Wiki
Location: Perth, WA

Re: 2019 Rd 24 V Sharks: Game Day

Post by Christmas Ape » September 2, 2019, 11:24 pm

Billy Walker wrote:
September 2, 2019, 4:41 pm
Christmas Ape wrote:
September 2, 2019, 4:33 pm
I couldn't watch the game yesterday so I'm watching the replay now and I don't know if it's already been answered but why was Horsburgh's try disallowed?
What's Sia supposed to do after he passes the ball? Start running toward the in-goal?
I thought it was tough but others on here have said it was the right call. There weren’t many replays shown and I have to say the bloke in the bunker must have had a hot date after the game because he didn’t take a second look at anything before make a call all game.

If your watching the replay can you try and get to the bottom of that feral bomb that was called to have bounced dead in goal but on replay appeared clearly in. I suspect the replay showed the second bounce but good if you could confirm what happened as a few of us were head scratching on that one. Pretty sure it was Hodgo who kicked it.
Impossible to tell conclusively whether that bomb went dead or not, the camera was too far away when it happens and then the little replay box in the corner doesn't even show the first bounce.
It sure looks like the ref just took the winger's word for it though, he was nowhere near it when it bounced.

User avatar
BJ
David Furner
Posts: 3775
Joined: February 2, 2007, 12:14 pm

Re: 2019 Rd 24 V Sharks: Game Day

Post by BJ » September 2, 2019, 11:43 pm

gergreg wrote:I don't know how many times I need to say it mate, but clearly I need to say it one more time.

I agree that it is a good interpretation by the referees, for all the reasons you, Gangers and Pickles have said.

I have seen many instances this year where an act of foul play has been committed and they have not - I repeat, they have not - handled it in this manner. Not once.

In fact in all the years I have watched rugby league, which is getting up to nearly 35 years, I have never ever seen advantage like that.

Just for a moment be a little objective. If that went the other way on the weekend you would be really annoyed. I would be.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
If you’ve never seen an advantage like that in 35 years then maybe you are confusing Golf with Rugby League.

Granted it’s doesn’t occur often, but occasionally the refs will pull it out of their arses and it’s happened against us and for us.

I remember the one on Cronk as clear as day. He stayed down for a few tackles and on replay it wasn’t even that bad.

gergreg
Steve Walters
Posts: 7148
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: 2019 Rd 24 V Sharks: Game Day

Post by gergreg » September 3, 2019, 6:46 am

BJ wrote:
gergreg wrote:I don't know how many times I need to say it mate, but clearly I need to say it one more time.

I agree that it is a good interpretation by the referees, for all the reasons you, Gangers and Pickles have said.

I have seen many instances this year where an act of foul play has been committed and they have not - I repeat, they have not - handled it in this manner. Not once.

In fact in all the years I have watched rugby league, which is getting up to nearly 35 years, I have never ever seen advantage like that.

Just for a moment be a little objective. If that went the other way on the weekend you would be really annoyed. I would be.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
If you’ve never seen an advantage like that in 35 years then maybe you are confusing Golf with Rugby League.

Granted it’s doesn’t occur often, but occasionally the refs will pull it out of their arses and it’s happened against us and for us.

I remember the one on Cronk as clear as day. He stayed down for a few tackles and on replay it wasn’t even that bad.
Was that a bunker call or on field referee?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017

raiderskater
David Furner
Posts: 3257
Joined: July 26, 2015, 8:24 pm
Favourite Player: Croker, Cotric, Sezer
Location: The Land of Lime Green

Re: 2019 Rd 24 V Sharks: Game Day

Post by raiderskater » September 3, 2019, 8:20 am

GreenMachine wrote:
September 2, 2019, 10:30 pm
The Rickman wrote:
September 2, 2019, 9:33 pm
Hazza wrote:
The Rickman wrote:
September 2, 2019, 9:14 pm
Hazza wrote:How bout Crokes confirming he slowed down deliberately (although he would say that wouldn't he). Hate to say I told ya so but.......
Is that true? Because I thought he slowed down at the time and watching it again today it certainly seemed like the case
Yeah said to 'Roaming Elliott' he had the obstruction in mind so slowed down to ensure he didn't score.
Hahaha I **** KNEW it!!

In your faces afghfjfkrkkr and Billy Walker!!
It crossed my mind.
Our Captain is a smart bloke and chances are on video review they look at an obstruction.
I feel like people routinely underestimate the skipper's game-smarts. He's a clever little dude.

I think the "tactical tackle" thought was the second one that crossed my mind. He's actually done it before!
And to all the people who doubted me, hello to them as well. - Mark Webber, Raiders Ballboy and Unluckiest F1 Driver Ever

I'm attacking in the right way, instead of just...attacking in the general direction. - Max Aaron (also eerily apropos for the Green Machine)

User avatar
PigRickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 25638
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Nick Cotric

Re: 2019 Rd 24 V Sharks: Game Day

Post by PigRickman » September 3, 2019, 8:59 am

greeneyed wrote:
September 2, 2019, 9:51 pm
What, he was supposed to run into the in goal when play was still going on? That’s ridiculous.
If he wants to avoid a penalty, yes. Or conversely run or walk back behind the football. Either way. The only thing he cant do is stand in the middle of the defensive line and impede a defender, which is exactly what he did.
That's the rules. Black and white. He's in front of the football and it's up to him to make sure he's not impeding defenders.

After he passes the ball, (and it's a pass, not an offload, he is effectively a block runner here, his presence in the play is not to receive the ball and engage the line, he receives it and immediately turns to pass for the run around, he doesnt engage the line at all), he takes 3 steps and stops. So he could just take 5 or he could not take any at all, either of those options would have seen him avoid impeding a defender.

Instead he walked right into the defensive line and stopped. And then Papalii literally runs around his back and in a gap that a defender is unable to close because Sia is standing in his way. Honestly, this is text book obstruction, which is why it was sent up no try and why it took them about 3 seconds to confirm the ruling.
The List - K.Love, Keno, Zippy's tennis angels, LA Lakers, Noah, Boozer, Lucy's horse tips, Colts, Lucy, Kevin Proctor, Dr Zaius, TR, Tinfoil hatted Gangers and Woody, anyone in Raiders HQ who can point to QBN on a map....

Matt wrote:
July 18, 2018, 3:49 pm
Edrick Lee 5. Jordan Rapana
Matt wrote:
June 25, 2019, 9:29 pm
Reed Mahoney 9. Josh Hodgson ©
Coaching Power Rankings: Ricky Stuart - Top 2, and he ain't 2.

User avatar
BJ
David Furner
Posts: 3775
Joined: February 2, 2007, 12:14 pm

Re: 2019 Rd 24 V Sharks: Game Day

Post by BJ » September 3, 2019, 9:12 am

gergreg wrote:
BJ wrote:
gergreg wrote:I don't know how many times I need to say it mate, but clearly I need to say it one more time.

I agree that it is a good interpretation by the referees, for all the reasons you, Gangers and Pickles have said.

I have seen many instances this year where an act of foul play has been committed and they have not - I repeat, they have not - handled it in this manner. Not once.

In fact in all the years I have watched rugby league, which is getting up to nearly 35 years, I have never ever seen advantage like that.

Just for a moment be a little objective. If that went the other way on the weekend you would be really annoyed. I would be.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
If you’ve never seen an advantage like that in 35 years then maybe you are confusing Golf with Rugby League.

Granted it’s doesn’t occur often, but occasionally the refs will pull it out of their arses and it’s happened against us and for us.

I remember the one on Cronk as clear as day. He stayed down for a few tackles and on replay it wasn’t even that bad.
Was that a bunker call or on field referee?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
No idea. But listening to sports ears at home games I know the bunker provides these tips regularly.

User avatar
GreenMachine
Glenn Lazarus
Posts: 390
Joined: April 13, 2005, 2:22 pm
Favourite Player: Laurie Daley

Re: 2019 Rd 24 V Sharks: Game Day

Post by GreenMachine » September 3, 2019, 9:46 am

I have no issues with the Red Horse no try.
Sia should have just run through the line and we wouldn't be talking about a "no try".
It's just a crappy rule that needs serious attention. Take a look at the "no try" to the Panthers in the Roosters game....the defender had every chance to make a tackle but milked it for all its worth. Yes that's the rule, but my point is the rule (and interpretation by refs and video refs) needs a serious scrub.

Cranky Old Man
Chris O'Sullivan
Posts: 928
Joined: February 12, 2013, 11:11 pm
Favourite Player: Sam Backo

Re: 2019 Rd 24 V Sharks: Game Day

Post by Cranky Old Man » September 3, 2019, 10:14 am

greeneyed wrote:
September 2, 2019, 10:45 pm
Cranky Old Man wrote:
September 2, 2019, 10:41 pm
Its nearly 40 years since I got my refs ticket but I don't remember the Soliola rule at all. I don't dispute that it now a rule now, or even back then. But it does seem nonsensical a bit, and I'm not whining because it went against us in this instance. I just don't believe that a player who has partaken in a passing rush and no longer has possession of the ball should have to remove himself from the vicinity of the action in order to give untrammelled access to any and all defenders however unlikely or likely they are to effect a tackle. A more sensible rule would allow him to continue in support of the play unless he has to change direction which might bring him into a blocking position against a defender.
That current rule could make it dicey for any player running too close to a dummy half who has moved forward in front of a stationary marker.

The foul play advantage i am completely happy with, I only wish it was applied more consistently. (There is that word again!)
Maybe because I’m getting to be a cranky old man too... I agree with you! :lol:
There is always room for more Cranky Old Men!

User avatar
Aero
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11554
Joined: May 19, 2006, 9:38 am
Location: Campbelltown

Re: 2019 Rd 24 V Sharks: Game Day

Post by Aero » September 3, 2019, 11:47 am

In regards to Horse's no try, I thought Sia ceases to be a block runner once we receives the ball? Image

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk


Image
2012, 2014 and 2015 Boogs Avatar/Signature of the Year

User avatar
PigRickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 25638
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Nick Cotric

Re: 2019 Rd 24 V Sharks: Game Day

Post by PigRickman » September 3, 2019, 12:11 pm

Aero wrote:
September 3, 2019, 11:47 am
In regards to Horse's no try, I thought Sia ceases to be a block runner once we receives the ball? Image

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

https://www.nrl.com/siteassets/operatio ... k-2019.pdf
Page 41 explains how a player passing the ball is an obstruction.

It is permissible for player 4, after
passing the ball, to slow down in order
to position himself for a return pass from
player 5. He must give ‘right of way’ to
opponents who are running across in
front of him to tackle player 5 but is not
guilty of obstructing opponents who are
coming from behind him.


Player 4 passes to player 5 but
continues to run in front of him in order
to obstruct opponents who are running
across to tackle. Player 4 should be
penalised.

I'd argue pretty strongly he's guilty of both of these. He did not give right of way to the defender coming across to make a tackle, he takes several steps forward after he passes the ball, for a set play where Papalii comes back in behind him, the only reasonable conclusion the referees can make is that he's there to intentionally obstruct defenders. Otherwise why is he taking steps forward and stopping in the line, rather than stepping backwards to make himself available for a pass, or going forward far enough that he's not an obstruction?

It really is open and shut. A text book example of obstruction. It's genuinely baffling to me that we're having this discussion... well it's not actually, this is just the GH and how it operates i guess.
The List - K.Love, Keno, Zippy's tennis angels, LA Lakers, Noah, Boozer, Lucy's horse tips, Colts, Lucy, Kevin Proctor, Dr Zaius, TR, Tinfoil hatted Gangers and Woody, anyone in Raiders HQ who can point to QBN on a map....

Matt wrote:
July 18, 2018, 3:49 pm
Edrick Lee 5. Jordan Rapana
Matt wrote:
June 25, 2019, 9:29 pm
Reed Mahoney 9. Josh Hodgson ©
Coaching Power Rankings: Ricky Stuart - Top 2, and he ain't 2.

User avatar
Aero
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11554
Joined: May 19, 2006, 9:38 am
Location: Campbelltown

Re: 2019 Rd 24 V Sharks: Game Day

Post by Aero » September 3, 2019, 1:05 pm

PigRickman wrote:
Aero wrote:
September 3, 2019, 11:47 am
In regards to Horse's no try, I thought Sia ceases to be a block runner once we receives the ball? Image

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

https://www.nrl.com/siteassets/operatio ... k-2019.pdf
Page 41 explains how a player passing the ball is an obstruction.

It is permissible for player 4, after
passing the ball, to slow down in order
to position himself for a return pass from
player 5. He must give ‘right of way’ to
opponents who are running across in
front of him to tackle player 5 but is not
guilty of obstructing opponents who are
coming from behind him.


Player 4 passes to player 5 but
continues to run in front of him in order
to obstruct opponents who are running
across to tackle. Player 4 should be
penalised.

I'd argue pretty strongly he's guilty of both of these. He did not give right of way to the defender coming across to make a tackle, he takes several steps forward after he passes the ball, for a set play where Papalii comes back in behind him, the only reasonable conclusion the referees can make is that he's there to intentionally obstruct defenders. Otherwise why is he taking steps forward and stopping in the line, rather than stepping backwards to make himself available for a pass, or going forward far enough that he's not an obstruction?

It really is open and shut. A text book example of obstruction. It's genuinely baffling to me that we're having this discussion... well it's not actually, this is just the GH and how it operates i guess.
Fair enough. Good to know Image Thanks PigRickman

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

Image
2012, 2014 and 2015 Boogs Avatar/Signature of the Year

User avatar
Chicka's shoe
John Ferguson
Posts: 2410
Joined: May 23, 2007, 10:28 am

Re: 2019 Rd 24 V Sharks: Game Day

Post by Chicka's shoe » September 6, 2019, 5:45 pm

Christmas Ape wrote:
September 2, 2019, 7:21 pm
Chicka's shoe wrote:
September 2, 2019, 7:10 pm
Christmas Ape wrote:
September 2, 2019, 5:57 pm
I reckon it's a fair call. Sia offloads then Papa comes from left to right, running around the back of Sia causing Prior to change direction to make the tackle. It's an old fashioned shepherd.
The confusing bit was when Sutton sent it to the bunker he called Sia the "lead runner" which he clearly wasn't.
Well I'll be a monkey's uncle, hello old boy.
Hello there, Chicka.
I'm conversing with the supporters. Must be finals time!
I was stranded on Rottnest Island yesterday and missed the game. Awful turn of events.
I was in Wellington NZ and went to the fillums (Tarantino) with my niece and missus. I'm almost home now, with a double bill to watch tomorrow!
Image

Post Reply