Is this last straw for anyone?

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

Moderator: GH Moderators

User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 42006
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Elliott Whitehead

Re: Is this last straw for anyone?

Post by Botman »

afgtnk wrote: October 8, 2019, 12:50 pm It's not, no.

The refs didn't rob us of the game. We had the majority of the ball and more than enough chances, but we didn't take them. It's disappointing that we're taking the easy option of blaming the officials, instead of looking inward and asking how we can be better. There are plenty of areas in which we can improve in.

We need to harness these feelings as supporters and back the team even harder next year.
I think its the fans, the mostly neutral fans who are doing that. The talk out of the club, Stuart, and the players, and most of the fans has been that we just werent quite good enough and that the refs didnt cost us the game
User avatar
-TW-
Mal Meninga
Posts: 35369
Joined: July 2, 2007, 11:41 am

Re: Is this last straw for anyone?

Post by -TW- »


afgtnk wrote:It's not, no.

The refs didn't rob us of the game. We had the majority of the ball and more than enough chances, but we didn't take them. It's disappointing that we're taking the easy option of blaming the officials, instead of looking inward and asking how we can be better. There are plenty of areas in which we can improve in.

We need to harness these feelings as supporters and back the team even harder next year.
Exactly, as i said previously we should have won that plenty of times but didnt throw enough to challenge their defence

Stick speaks regularly of winning the little moments, they did that. They caught out terrible marker defence twice.

Sent from my ELE-L29 using Tapatalk

User avatar
Beejay
John Ferguson
Posts: 2589
Joined: April 4, 2007, 4:47 pm
Location: Shellharbour

Re: Is this last straw for anyone?

Post by Beejay »

PigRickman wrote: October 8, 2019, 10:03 am I think it’s both Beejay
It’s a crack down on when they can be on and simply say as you did, for injuries and when the ball is not in play

By rule then it’s extremely unlikely for this to occur again
But also if it does, like if a trainer is on the field attending to an injured player, and the ball strikes them, then you can’t just allow that team to ever gain advantage from that... be it a scrum feed or penalty to the other team, it can’t ever be that a teams trainer interferes with the game and that team gains an advantage from it
I understand, but there are so many variables. What if the trainer is treating an injury and a ball hits him accidentally on the 2nd tackle?
What if it’s our trainer Helping treat one of their players?
What if it’s our trainer treating our player injured in backplay?
What if it’s a streaker that the ball hits?
What about if it hits the ref like the rule was written for?

You’d end up with many different rules depending on which ‘non-player’ gets hit and where and how it happens, for something that happens once every 1000+ games.

The fact that it hit their trainer on the 5th tackle, a mere 5 metres inside the attacking half, is just out of this world unlucky.
User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 42006
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Elliott Whitehead

Re: Is this last straw for anyone?

Post by Botman »

Beejay wrote: October 8, 2019, 1:22 pm I understand, but there are so many variables. What if the trainer is treating an injury and a ball hits him accidentally on the 2nd tackle?
What if it’s our trainer Helping treat one of their players?
What if it’s our trainer treating our player injured in backplay?
What if it’s a streaker that the ball hits?
What about if it hits the ref like the rule was written for?

You’d end up with many different rules depending on which ‘non-player’ gets hit and where and how it happens, for something that happens once every 1000+ games.

The fact that it hit their trainer on the 5th tackle, a mere 5 metres inside the attacking half, is just out of this world unlucky.
They're all really easy though, and trust me, as per previous conversations on this site about rule changes im a BIG "unintended consequences" guy. But you can write a rule the covers basically any such scenario. This is a really easy one. And how you deal with it depends on what restrictions you're going to place on trainers moving forward.

And really if you actually say that trainers are not to be on ground unless treating an injured player or during stoppages, then you can probably just go with the tackle being replayed for all circumstances.

The point of a rulebook is to provide guidance for things that can happen... well before sunday no had considered this. That's fine and that's bad luck for us and so be it, but now it's happened and we saw the consequences, it must be addressed. And the solution can never again be that a trainer impacts the game and the net result of that is his own team receives the football and a new set of tackles.

There are variables and they can all be dealt with, the game has a responsibility to now deal with it.
Wiki Special
Brett Mullins
Posts: 1527
Joined: August 11, 2016, 8:16 am
Favourite Player: Ruben Wiki

Re: Is this last straw for anyone?

Post by Wiki Special »

Not the last straw for me. I started supporting the Raiders on GF day 1987. My father is a Manly fan, wanted to go the opposite to him and Canberra had more QLD players that I recognised from State Of Origin. Blessed to have the next 7 seasons with 4 more GF appearances. If we can survive as fans after what we have gone through since then Sunday night can't and won't break us. It won't break our squad either.
User avatar
-PJ-
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24720
Joined: May 8, 2010, 1:58 pm
Favourite Player: Josh Papalii
Location: 416.9 km from GIO Stadium

Re: Is this last straw for anyone?

Post by -PJ- »

I'm having the refs around for Xmas turkey, no hard feelings Benny boy....

And I'm super excited(Big Kev style) for 2020 and beyond.

But for now..until March my heart rate returns to a safe pace..it's all good.
3rd Battalion Royal Australian Regiment..Old Faithful
#emptythetank :shock:
User avatar
BadnMean
Steve Walters
Posts: 7595
Joined: May 13, 2013, 5:30 pm
Favourite Player: chicka

Re: Is this last straw for anyone?

Post by BadnMean »

PerthRaider86 wrote: October 8, 2019, 12:07 pm It came down to BJ not trying to get back into the line and laying all over the ruck. Also bateman trying to make tackles at the start of that set instead of defending out wide like he is meant to. If BJ and Bateman were out there properly Toupu would of not gotten through. Also all BJ had to do was early pass to rapana and he was in to score.... but BJ was only thinking about one thing...


2 BJ lapses in judgement cost us the game, Just like Edrick Lee dropping the ball against the storm in 2016
Well you guys have your scapegoat. I think it's moronic and you've picked the wrong target since he's a major reason we're even in the game at that point and it's not the fault of the bloke who's just made a legs tackle and must release that no-one else got to marker. We were scrambling backwards due to the yards made as the Roosters took advantage of an unready defensive line already. But yeah, you've picked your scapegoat.

It would be just as dumb to hang it all on Tapine and Papa for being slow to get across on their first try or Hodgo and Sezer for not taking an early field goal. But if you've had your sights set on BJ then I suppose you choose him. Not me, I love watching the big galoot play.
User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 32522
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: Is this last straw for anyone?

Post by Northern Raider »

The game was full of 'what if' scenarios for both sides. That's all part of football. That said there's no escaping the fact that 6 again call was an enormous cock up and a massive shift in momentum.

So I'm not as worried about what could/should have happened. I'm only concerned about what DID happen.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
cholztrad
Chris O'Sullivan
Posts: 934
Joined: July 23, 2006, 8:25 pm

Re: Is this last straw for anyone?

Post by cholztrad »

afgtnk wrote: October 8, 2019, 12:50 pm It's not, no.

The refs didn't rob us of the game. We had the majority of the ball and more than enough chances, but we didn't take them. It's disappointing that we're taking the easy option of blaming the officials, instead of looking inward and asking how we can be better. There are plenty of areas in which we can improve in.

We need to harness these feelings as supporters and back the team even harder next year.

My issue is more focused towards the league and not the team, there's a lot of people here saying the same thing. We should have won given we had so much ball and didn't take our opportunities. Yes that is true, but **** following a sport where if the game is played where both teams are playing well and it's 50 / 50 in terms of skills then more often then not it's going to be decided by a ref. Yes BJ didn't pass, but they also had their opportunities and won off the back off luck. I'll cop it if it's a 1 off but how many games this year have been decided by the ref? in what other sport is it anything close to this.
Image
User avatar
PerthRaider86
John Ferguson
Posts: 2414
Joined: May 23, 2014, 6:53 pm
Favourite Player: Josh Papalii - Alan Tongue
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Is this last straw for anyone?

Post by PerthRaider86 »

BadnMean wrote: October 8, 2019, 2:10 pm
PerthRaider86 wrote: October 8, 2019, 12:07 pm It came down to BJ not trying to get back into the line and laying all over the ruck. Also bateman trying to make tackles at the start of that set instead of defending out wide like he is meant to. If BJ and Bateman were out there properly Toupu would of not gotten through. Also all BJ had to do was early pass to rapana and he was in to score.... but BJ was only thinking about one thing...


2 BJ lapses in judgement cost us the game, Just like Edrick Lee dropping the ball against the storm in 2016
Well you guys have your scapegoat. I think it's moronic and you've picked the wrong target since he's a major reason we're even in the game at that point and it's not the fault of the bloke who's just made a legs tackle and must release that no-one else got to marker. We were scrambling backwards due to the yards made as the Roosters took advantage of an unready defensive line already. But yeah, you've picked your scapegoat.

It would be just as dumb to hang it all on Tapine and Papa for being slow to get across on their first try or Hodgo and Sezer for not taking an early field goal. But if you've had your sights set on BJ then I suppose you choose him. Not me, I love watching the big galoot play.
Havent picked a scapegoat. Just giving my opinion
Perth Based Raiders Fan
Mariner
Peter Jackson
Posts: 200
Joined: September 3, 2010, 1:24 am

Re: Is this last straw for anyone?

Post by Mariner »

edit
Last edited by Mariner on September 9, 2022, 11:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Roger Kenworthy
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11505
Joined: January 7, 2005, 10:18 pm
Favourite Player: Ruben Wiki, J-Lo, Jordan Rapana

Re: Is this last straw for anyone?

Post by Roger Kenworthy »

afgtnk wrote: October 8, 2019, 12:50 pm It's not, no.

The refs didn't rob us of the game. We had the majority of the ball and more than enough chances, but we didn't take them. It's disappointing that we're taking the easy option of blaming the officials, instead of looking inward and asking how we can be better. There are plenty of areas in which we can improve in.

We need to harness these feelings as supporters and back the team even harder next year.
I think there is a need to voice our frustrations. A reversed six again is something I have never seen before and to introduce it on that stage throws the integrity of the competition under huge clouds. The NRL have a history of inactivity without a backlash. The trainer incident, for example, is completely within the normal realms of possibility but nobody at the NRL proactively addressed it.

We didn't make much of our chances but neither did they until that point.
Billy Walker
Laurie Daley
Posts: 12408
Joined: April 29, 2017, 7:22 pm
Favourite Player: Ashley Gilbert

Re: Is this last straw for anyone?

Post by Billy Walker »

Been really really impressed by Ricky and the Raiders in the mature way they have copped this one on the chin. Also have to say I’ve been surprised and impressed by the response of the fans. I fully expected this place to melt down but it hasn’t. There is clear disappointment, some justified stones thrown at the NRL and refs, but an overwhelming sense of philosophical optimism. Impressive stuff and a clear sign of a club on the rise!
User avatar
Off
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16409
Joined: May 20, 2007, 5:13 pm

Re: Is this last straw for anyone?

Post by Off »

Nah it can get ****.
This place is woke.
User avatar
Off
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16409
Joined: May 20, 2007, 5:13 pm

Re: Is this last straw for anyone?

Post by Off »

I wont be watching another year of fake news. Pm me if we get another crack.
This place is woke.
Smurfette
Brett Mullins
Posts: 1052
Joined: July 25, 2007, 5:40 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Is this last straw for anyone?

Post by Smurfette »

Beejay wrote: October 8, 2019, 1:22 pm
PigRickman wrote: October 8, 2019, 10:03 am I think it’s both Beejay
It’s a crack down on when they can be on and simply say as you did, for injuries and when the ball is not in play

By rule then it’s extremely unlikely for this to occur again
But also if it does, like if a trainer is on the field attending to an injured player, and the ball strikes them, then you can’t just allow that team to ever gain advantage from that... be it a scrum feed or penalty to the other team, it can’t ever be that a teams trainer interferes with the game and that team gains an advantage from it
I understand, but there are so many variables. What if the trainer is treating an injury and a ball hits him accidentally on the 2nd tackle?
What if it’s our trainer Helping treat one of their players?
What if it’s our trainer treating our player injured in backplay?
What if it’s a streaker that the ball hits?
What about if it hits the ref like the rule was written for?

You’d end up with many different rules depending on which ‘non-player’ gets hit and where and how it happens, for something that happens once every 1000+ games.

The fact that it hit their trainer on the 5th tackle, a mere 5 metres inside the attacking half, is just out of this world unlucky.
The biggest problem these incidents have highlighted is how mutual infringements are resolved. It is completely absurd for them to result in a whole new set of six for a team. In any situation, a one in a million occurrence ends up having a disproportionately large impact on the run of play.

In my opinion, the NRL should have acted on this after the streaker incident in Origin. No one was robbed, but Qld felt aggrieved because it cost them a try, and NSW felt aggrieved because Qld were gifted another set of six right on the line. All because some naked idiot was too fast for security. The NRL now has another opportunity to correct this outdated rule, and they must.

As PigRickman says, there doesn’t need to be a complicated solution. Replaying the tackle would be one option. Another would be for the referee to make a ruling to reflect what they think would most likely have happened but for the infringement (Whitehead picks up the ball, Matt Scott scores an origin try). This is similar to the situation for penalty tries.

No solution will be controversy free, but there are options that don’t so unnecessarily change the course of play.
User avatar
Beejay
John Ferguson
Posts: 2589
Joined: April 4, 2007, 4:47 pm
Location: Shellharbour

Re: Is this last straw for anyone?

Post by Beejay »

PigRickman wrote: October 8, 2019, 1:43 pm
Beejay wrote: October 8, 2019, 1:22 pm I understand, but there are so many variables. What if the trainer is treating an injury and a ball hits him accidentally on the 2nd tackle?
What if it’s our trainer Helping treat one of their players?
What if it’s our trainer treating our player injured in backplay?
What if it’s a streaker that the ball hits?
What about if it hits the ref like the rule was written for?

You’d end up with many different rules depending on which ‘non-player’ gets hit and where and how it happens, for something that happens once every 1000+ games.

The fact that it hit their trainer on the 5th tackle, a mere 5 metres inside the attacking half, is just out of this world unlucky.
They're all really easy though, and trust me, as per previous conversations on this site about rule changes im a BIG "unintended consequences" guy. But you can write a rule the covers basically any such scenario. This is a really easy one. And how you deal with it depends on what restrictions you're going to place on trainers moving forward.

And really if you actually say that trainers are not to be on ground unless treating an injured player or during stoppages, then you can probably just go with the tackle being replayed for all circumstances.

The point of a rulebook is to provide guidance for things that can happen... well before sunday no had considered this. That's fine and that's bad luck for us and so be it, but now it's happened and we saw the consequences, it must be addressed. And the solution can never again be that a trainer impacts the game and the net result of that is his own team receives the football and a new set of tackles.

There are variables and they can all be dealt with, the game has a responsibility to now deal with it.
I don’t disagree with your intentions, but I don’t think it would be easy as you say.
That rule about the ball hitting the officials is an international rule and has always been the rule.
It’s black and white and there’s no room for interpretation. So as much as it went against us no one is blowing up that the referees stuffed it.

If we fix the trainers being on the field so much, what are we fixing?
It’s something that would happen once every 5-10 years.
A rule that is applied so rarely needs to be really clear and not open to interpretation.

No matter what rule you made it (including that you go back and start the play the ball again), there’s all types of scenarios where that would end up being incredibly unfair on a team.
User avatar
Beejay
John Ferguson
Posts: 2589
Joined: April 4, 2007, 4:47 pm
Location: Shellharbour

Re: Is this last straw for anyone?

Post by Beejay »

How good is Rugby League though!
What a year it’s been, I’ve never enjoyed it more.
Thanks to all the players for giving me incredible excitement and a wild ride.

Aidan Sezer has a decent end to the year, but will do wonders for this team to upgrade that spot.
Joe Tapine still only threatened his potential, and I’m still waiting for that breakout year. Next year.

I’m pumped
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145102
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Is this last straw for anyone?

Post by greeneyed »

Beejay wrote:Also as mentioned by others; the trainer issue. Do NOT change the rule or bring one in for this absolute freak occurrence. You WILL create another issue that won’t be foreseen until the next freaky thing happens.

What should happen is a massive crackdown on trainers being on the field. Why in the world was he even there 2 mins into the game, surely no one is thirsty yet. They need clear rules around when trainers are to be on, and it should be only when a clear injury, or breaks in play.
They certainly need to change the rules to get the trainers off the field as much as possible. The fans hate it, it is not in the spirit of the game, sport in general.

But they also need to change the rule. If a trainer gets in the way and causes the play to stop, his team needs to be the team penalised by handing possession to the opposition.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Image
User avatar
Sossman
David Furner
Posts: 3457
Joined: August 28, 2006, 4:49 pm
Favourite Player: Jarrod Croker
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Is this last straw for anyone?

Post by Sossman »


greeneyed wrote:If a trainer gets in the way and causes the play to stop, his team needs to be the team penalised by handing possession to the opposition.
Easy rule to apply. Fair. Incentivises keeping trainers off the field.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

4 Time Boogs Award Winner.

Get tested for VIKING CLAP today. https://www.health.act.gov.au/hospitals ... lth-centre.
User avatar
Beejay
John Ferguson
Posts: 2589
Joined: April 4, 2007, 4:47 pm
Location: Shellharbour

Re: Is this last straw for anyone?

Post by Beejay »

greeneyed wrote: October 8, 2019, 7:22 pm
Beejay wrote:Also as mentioned by others; the trainer issue. Do NOT change the rule or bring one in for this absolute freak occurrence. You WILL create another issue that won’t be foreseen until the next freaky thing happens.

What should happen is a massive crackdown on trainers being on the field. Why in the world was he even there 2 mins into the game, surely no one is thirsty yet. They need clear rules around when trainers are to be on, and it should be only when a clear injury, or breaks in play.
They certainly need to change the rules to get the trainers off the field as much as possible. The fans hate it, it is not in the spirit of the game, sport in general.

But they also need to change the rule. If a trainer gets in the way and causes the play to stop, his team needs to be the team penalised by handing possession to the opposition.
Like I said before, it’s a FREAK thing;

What if...
The Raiders are lining up for a field goal to win the game, and it gets charged down, but we have players there that are about to retrieve it, But it hit the trainer who happens to be on the field treating a player with a suspected broken leg just behind the play.

Why should we lose possession?
We are on the attack.
The trainer SHOULD be there.
The Raiders have players around the ball who were about to pick it up and get 6 again in the attacking area and virtually guarantee a win.

Under your rule we have to hand over the ball.
And you know what happens?
Everyone says we should change the rule.
User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 42006
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Elliott Whitehead

Re: Is this last straw for anyone?

Post by Botman »

If a player has a suspected broken leg, there is no chance the game isnt stopped, and in such a scenario, if the trainer doesnt get the game stopped, we SHOULD lose poessesion. That's on us, that's on our trainer and we have done the wrong thing and we will suffer the consequences for it.

I wouldnt have a single problem in the world with that beejay, you keep outlining scenarios that are bread and butter and pretending there is some grave miscarraige of justice being done.
If club personnel, who is not one of the 13 players who is supposed to be on the field playing the game interferes with the game the answer absolutely cannot be that you hand the football back to that team.
User avatar
Beejay
John Ferguson
Posts: 2589
Joined: April 4, 2007, 4:47 pm
Location: Shellharbour

Re: Is this last straw for anyone?

Post by Beejay »

He’s not interfering if he’s there for a real purpose and the ball bounces back to him in some way.
It could just be a dislocated finger, or a severe cramp.
There’s a reason he’s there.
We have possession and on attack.

Whatever way you slice it there’s a way it’s unfair.

How good is the offseason
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16589
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Is this last straw for anyone?

Post by gangrenous »

Beejay wrote: I don’t disagree with your intentions, but I don’t think it would be easy as you say.
That rule about the ball hitting the officials is an international rule and has always been the rule.
It’s black and white and there’s no room for interpretation. So as much as it went against us no one is blowing up that the referees stuffed it.
I am seeing this again and again. The rule for officials is black and white. For trainers it isn’t, it doesn’t exist. So the referees were well within their right to do the common sense thing and award the Raiders a penalty which every man and his dog apart from Beejay agrees will be the rule next year. The referees stuffed it.

And while they make that rule, fix the officials rule as well. Imagine coming off your line you accidentally hit the pocket ref with a pass. With the current rule you lose possession and the opposition gets a set of 6 on your line. Who came up with this **** rule in the first place!
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145102
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Is this last straw for anyone?

Post by greeneyed »

What Pigman said.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Image
User avatar
Roger Kenworthy
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11505
Joined: January 7, 2005, 10:18 pm
Favourite Player: Ruben Wiki, J-Lo, Jordan Rapana

Re: Is this last straw for anyone?

Post by Roger Kenworthy »

PigRickman wrote: October 8, 2019, 7:38 pm If a player has a suspected broken leg, there is no chance the game isnt stopped, and in such a scenario, if the trainer doesnt get the game stopped, we SHOULD lose poessesion. That's on us, that's on our trainer and we have done the wrong thing and we will suffer the consequences for it.

I wouldnt have a single problem in the world with that beejay, you keep outlining scenarios that are bread and butter and pretending there is some grave miscarraige of justice being done.
If club personnel, who is not one of the 13 players who is supposed to be on the field playing the game interferes with the game the answer absolutely cannot be that you hand the football back to that team.
But what if Lee Harvey Oswald's great grandson shoots a trainer from the roof of the SCG (it would be a miraculous long range shot) and the bullet richochets into the ball and a player offloads the deflated ball into the slumped trainer and it's the first tackle of the set and aliens land and abduct Ray Warren?
User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 42006
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Elliott Whitehead

Re: Is this last straw for anyone?

Post by Botman »

gangrenous wrote: October 8, 2019, 7:48 pm
Beejay wrote: I don’t disagree with your intentions, but I don’t think it would be easy as you say.
That rule about the ball hitting the officials is an international rule and has always been the rule.
It’s black and white and there’s no room for interpretation. So as much as it went against us no one is blowing up that the referees stuffed it.
I am seeing this again and again. The rule for officials is black and white. For trainers it isn’t, it doesn’t exist. So the referees were well within their right to do the common sense thing and award the Raiders a penalty which every man and his dog apart from Beejay agrees will be the rule next year. The referees stuffed it.

And while they make that rule, fix the officials rule as well. Imagine coming off your line you accidentally hit the pocket ref with a pass. With the current rule you lose possession and the opposition gets a set of 6 on your line. Who came up with this **** rule in the first place!
The correct rule was used IMO. The intent of the rule was for this sort of circumstance. I think you're barking up the wrong tree here and everyone bar you and VERY few others agree that the rule sucks but how the officials rule this was the best option available to them.

To rule a penalty in that sitation, there is no precedent for that, there is no rule, that is literally making it up as they go.There is **** ZERO chance if roles were reverse you would advocate a penalty to the roosters. You would cite the rule book and say this should have been a scrum feed to the Raiders.

And just because that suits us more wouldnt have made it right or fair. The ruling on this, as per the book was correct. The officials were not wrong, they did exactly as they should have, the rule is wrong and has been for a long time.

As for the who came up with it? it is a vestige of a different time. Where RL was closer to RU than it was modern day RL, and in those times possession didnt matter nearly as much as field position (as in RU now), so the attacking team is based on territory not possession. The rule never evolved with how modern day RL is. The person who came up with the rule was spot on for that time... the onus was on those who followed him to ensure the rules evolved with the game.
User avatar
Sossman
David Furner
Posts: 3457
Joined: August 28, 2006, 4:49 pm
Favourite Player: Jarrod Croker
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Is this last straw for anyone?

Post by Sossman »


Roger Kenworthy wrote:
But what if Lee Harvey Oswald's great grandson shoots a trainer from the roof of the SCG (it would be a miraculous long range shot) and the bullet richochets into the ball and a player offloads the deflated ball into the slumped trainer and it's the first tackle of the set and aliens land and abduct Ray Warren?
Immediate Roosters victory. Even if they're not playing.



Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

4 Time Boogs Award Winner.

Get tested for VIKING CLAP today. https://www.health.act.gov.au/hospitals ... lth-centre.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16589
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Is this last straw for anyone?

Post by gangrenous »

The ruling is not correct as per the book. The ruling is correct if you want the closest rule possible to what happened. You’re still making up a new rule. You can argue that if you’re making up a new rule it has to resemble the closest possible rule. I think it’s reasonable to argue if you’re making up a rule that you go with common sense which I think everyone agrees is a penalty against that team.
User avatar
Roger Kenworthy
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11505
Joined: January 7, 2005, 10:18 pm
Favourite Player: Ruben Wiki, J-Lo, Jordan Rapana

Re: Is this last straw for anyone?

Post by Roger Kenworthy »

gangrenous wrote: October 8, 2019, 8:05 pm The ruling is not correct as per the book. The ruling is correct if you want the closest rule possible to what happened. You’re still making up a new rule. You can argue that if you’re making up a new rule it has to resemble the closest possible rule. I think it’s reasonable to argue if you’re making up a rule that you go with common sense which I think everyone agrees is a penalty against that team.
Yeah I'd argue the closer rule was the Roosters fielding a 14th man who got involved in the play.

It just defies belief that the NRL never identified the need for a clear rule on this when trainers are on the park the whole match.
User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 42006
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Elliott Whitehead

Re: Is this last straw for anyone?

Post by Botman »

Its not a new rule though, it's an extension of an exisiting rule and the circusmtances were in the spirit of that same rule... its a non playing person competely, randomly and unintentionally being struct by the football.

Your idea of a penalty is literally just making that up as you go, which is absolutely unacceptable in a regular season game let alone a GF...
If that becomes the rule after this, so be it, but it wasnt a rule at the time. So the officials cant be expected to huddle around and literally make up a rule on the spot, especially not when there is a clear black and white rule that covers the spirit of what happens off.

the correct thing here is to apply the cloeset ruling possible. Which they did. The issue is the rule.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16589
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Is this last straw for anyone?

Post by gangrenous »

You’ve convinced me.

Jerk
User avatar
Roger Kenworthy
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11505
Joined: January 7, 2005, 10:18 pm
Favourite Player: Ruben Wiki, J-Lo, Jordan Rapana

Re: Is this last straw for anyone?

Post by Roger Kenworthy »

PigRickman wrote: October 8, 2019, 8:10 pm Its not a new rule though, it's an extension of an exisiting rule and the circusmtances were in the spirit of that same rule... its a non playing person competely, randomly and unintentionally being struct by the football.

Your idea of a penalty is literally just making that up as you go, which is absolutely unacceptable in a regular season game let alone a GF...
If that becomes the rule after this, so be it, but it wasnt a rule at the time. So the officials cant be expected to huddle around and literally make up a rule on the spot, especially not when there is a clear black and white rule that covers the spirit of what happens off.

the correct thing here is to apply the cloeset ruling possible. Which they did. The issue is the rule.
I would have been happy with a scrum to us or a penalty for Soliola's challenge on the kicker.

The problem with the rule you quote is that it is assumed the referee/touch judge/spectator inteference is accidental. You could see their trainer was loving the fact he got them 6 again.

But the major fault is in the lack of foresight at the NRL of this scenario.
User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 42006
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Elliott Whitehead

Re: Is this last straw for anyone?

Post by Botman »

Roger Kenworthy wrote: October 8, 2019, 8:15 pm The problem with the rule you quote is that it is assumed the referee/touch judge/spectator inteference is accidental. You could see their trainer was loving the fact he got them 6 again.
Of course he was loving the result, but you cant seriously be trying to tell me this was an intentional act, can you?

Surely not. IM **** STRAPPED IN for this if you are.

You're 100% right with the last line, the fault of this lies with the NRL. This issue HAS come up before and it was absurd then and it is now. They had chances to look at that rule and understand it was outdated and they just didnt because... who knows... laziness, lack of care? as you say, lack of foresight...

And now it probably will get changed for all the **** good that does us.
User avatar
Roger Kenworthy
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11505
Joined: January 7, 2005, 10:18 pm
Favourite Player: Ruben Wiki, J-Lo, Jordan Rapana

Re: Is this last straw for anyone?

Post by Roger Kenworthy »

PigRickman wrote: October 8, 2019, 8:17 pm
Roger Kenworthy wrote: October 8, 2019, 8:15 pm The problem with the rule you quote is that it is assumed the referee/touch judge/spectator inteference is accidental. You could see their trainer was loving the fact he got them 6 again.
Of course he was loving the result, but you cant seriously be trying to tell me this was an intentional act, can you?

Surely not. IM **** STRAPPED IN for this if you are.

You're 100% right with the last line, the fault of this lies with the NRL. This issue HAS come up before and it was absurd then and it is now. They had chances to look at that rule and understand it was outdated and they just didnt because... who knows... laziness, lack of care? as you say, lack of foresight...

And now it probably will get changed for all the **** good that does us.
Not suggesting it was intentional but if that rule is cited there was no disincentive for him to get out of the way.

I just don't think any rule was relevant in that scenario and it's absolutely taking the mickey to penalise us. That's not the intent of the rule. Then again, how can we expect the refs to judge with a feel for the game when they struggle so much with the black and white.
Post Reply