2021 Rd 3 V Warriors: Game Day

[Off]

and that ref is a dead set blind ****.

[Off]

Next time I come down to watch a game, I want a meet up with all you blokes, and if we lose im gunna punch on with all of you, if we win im gunna kiss all your heads.

[BadnMean]

Not a sensational performance at all when you can't control a 21 pt lead, under known circumstances.

Honestly mate, that's a failure to control a game. It's literally in the teams/coaches hands at that point. Hodgo needed to be more at dummy half- Starling could have been the lock- dumb play which had each playing their weaker suit and not their strength. Wighton went missing (impression at the ground).

And some poor psoitional selections being carried cost us (Rapana). Didn't see Scott or Croker delivering much from the back 5 either.

I count that as 2 points we threw away not 2 points lost.

If you watched that game, and you have knowledge and understand the duress our 17 where in, and can clearly see the difference between a W and L was an obvious and egregious refereeing error, and your take away point from that is “we should do better managing the game” then I don’t know what you want from people with that?

Not to be rude, but if you get all that and that is still where you land about this footy game, there is nothing I or anyone can do to help you understand why the game wasn’t “managed” well by the Raiders
You’re just going to have to figure that one out on your own if those reasons are not sufficient for you

A bit like the GF and "6 again-gate" reffing things tend to be noticed briefly and then moved on from at the ground. I've made a conscious effort the last couple of years to refuse to focus on reffing- it just kills my enjoyment of the game and -imo- provides an endless stream of excuses.

I knew we'd be tired and that's why they were coming. I didn't see Scott and Croker helping that situation (of all the forwards out) out as I'd like- turns out there were reasons behind that. I don't know how you could watch a game with all the middles out and a centre only makes 3 runs and not wish he'd done more. Hence my comment *I don't need endless more posts explaining Scott was injured, I know that now, didn't when I was at the game or posting earlier, so that's cleared up*

Admiring the effort and courage of the players remaining, doesn't take away from thinking we could have controlled the game differently to mitigate the fatigue. Options in the last 5 minutes like dying with the ball on the 5th tackle in the opposition 10m zone (Starling) with 4 mins to go instead of grubbering- when repeat sets and not having to tackle more or even letting them have the ball at all to score... Or who knows, maybe we score off the grubber and ice the game... Either one better than dying with the ball at dummy half on the 5th.

That's one instance. In general, I've been on record here before saying that using Hodgo as a battering ram at lock is a dud ploy. He's our smartest player. I want him controlling the outcome.

Issues like that with playing Hodgo at lock and leaving Starling to control the game are exactly what I mean when I say we could have managed the game better by taking better decisions. Starling is a good player to come in and make an impact off the bench at times- but not my first choice to run the side around the park and take all the key decisions.

And I stand by Rapana being on the left being a similarly poor decision that has cost us points and games across 2 seasons now.

[gerg]

I'm not going to get upset over the loss for the obvious reasons but I must say I don't think Ricky managed the rotation of players well. As soon as we were down to one on the bench we were buggered but Starling should have come on in the first half and our middles should have been rotated. How many interchanges did we make for the day, it didn't seem like 8.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[BadnMean]

Lads I think it's pretty simple. Was that second half tough to watch. Yes it was excruciating. Did the boys play well. Yes, it was the best performance this year. I had my old man criticise parts but like many of you I was having no of it. But frankly deep down I wanted to blame my suffering on someone or something too.

If there was one decision I found perplexing, it was that Kris passed all the tests to return but the dr took one final look at it and decided he shouldn't return. Presumably they have tests to ensure a consistent standard is applied. If he passed all those tests then surely he is allowed to return?

Yes, a very questionable decision considering we had a centre out there playing 70 minutes with a broken rib.

Who's welfare is more important?

I thought Kris was out cold at one point though. May be wrong but I thought if they see that, you can't come back regardless. May be wrong.

[Botman]

Lads I think it's pretty simple. Was that second half tough to watch. Yes it was excruciating. Did the boys play well. Yes, it was the best performance this year. I had my old man criticise parts but like many of you I was having no of it. But frankly deep down I wanted to blame my suffering on someone or something too.

If there was one decision I found perplexing, it was that Kris passed all the tests to return but the dr took one final look at it and decided he shouldn't return. Presumably they have tests to ensure a consistent standard is applied. If he passed all those tests then surely he is allowed to return?

Yes, a very questionable decision considering we had a centre out there playing 70 minutes with a broken rib.

Who's welfare is more important?

The doctor isn’t making a decision of Kris vs Scott
His assessment of Kris is independent of any other factor, as it should be.
He ruled Kris out on the basis of impairment at the time of the head knock
Which is absolutely fair, Kris apparently only just scraped through to protocol, so the doc is always going to err on the side of caution

For Scott I’m sure if you asked the doc, he’d have said get the guy off the park, play with 13, play with 12, 11... he’s not going to care, his duty of care is to the individual players, not the team or game
But he doesn’t have authority to make that call with Scott, he does with HIA’s

The question of who’s welfare is more compromised or important isn’t one his position answers.

[Seiffert82]

Lads I think it's pretty simple. Was that second half tough to watch. Yes it was excruciating. Did the boys play well. Yes, it was the best performance this year. I had my old man criticise parts but like many of you I was having no of it. But frankly deep down I wanted to blame my suffering on someone or something too.

If there was one decision I found perplexing, it was that Kris passed all the tests to return but the dr took one final look at it and decided he shouldn't return. Presumably they have tests to ensure a consistent standard is applied. If he passed all those tests then surely he is allowed to return?

Yes, a very questionable decision considering we had a centre out there playing 70 minutes with a broken rib.

Who's welfare is more important?

The doctor isn’t making a decision of Kris vs Scott
His assessment of Kris is independent of any other factor, as it should be.
He ruled Kris out on the basis of impairment at the time of the head knock
Which is absolutely fair, Kris apparently only just scraped through to protocol, so the doc is always going to err on the side of caution

For Scott I’m sure if you asked the doc, he’d have said get the guy off the park, play with 13, play with 12, 11... he’s not going to care, his duty of care is to the individual players, not the team or game
But he doesn’t have authority to make that call with Scott, he does with HIA’s

The question of who’s welfare is more compromised or important isn’t one his position answers.

Fair point, but what's the point of having a protocol?

[Pete Cash]

I don't see the harm in extending the bench to 6 but keeping the amount of allowed subs the same. The game is ridiculously fast right now and it seems to me it's taking it's toll on the players bodies

[NZWarriors95]

As a die hard Warriors fan.. I dunno if you lads have ever watched Henry referee one of our games before, but he's usually just as rubbish with us as he was with your lot last night.

The pass for BMM's try was questionable, sure. But that kinda stuff happens week in, week out, to the majority of sides in the competition. Sometimes you've gotta take the little wins on game day, because bets are you'll get dicked again the following week.

You guys played with heart and I don't think you could be *that* upset with either team coming away with the win. You'll likely be there at the pointy end of the season, we're getting better but aren't a lock like most would consider Canberra to be.

Chin up lads, still plenty of footy to come.

[-TW-]

As a die hard Warriors fan.. I dunno if you lads have ever watched Henry referee one of our games before, but he's usually just as rubbish with us as he was with your lot last night.

The pass for BMM's try was questionable, sure. But that kinda stuff happens week in, week out, to the majority of sides in the competition. Sometimes you've gotta take the little wins on game day, because bets are you'll get dicked again the following week.

You guys played with heart and I don't think you could be *that* upset with either team coming away with the win. You'll likely be there at the pointy end of the season, we're getting better but aren't a lock like most would consider Canberra to be.

Chin up lads, still plenty of footy to come.

Perenara is easily the worst ref in the comp. I don't know any ref where multiple teams cringe when he is named.

We were actually supposed to have Checchin who is easily the best ref.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[NZWarriors95]

As a die hard Warriors fan.. I dunno if you lads have ever watched Henry referee one of our games before, but he's usually just as rubbish with us as he was with your lot last night.

The pass for BMM's try was questionable, sure. But that kinda stuff happens week in, week out, to the majority of sides in the competition. Sometimes you've gotta take the little wins on game day, because bets are you'll get dicked again the following week.

You guys played with heart and I don't think you could be *that* upset with either team coming away with the win. You'll likely be there at the pointy end of the season, we're getting better but aren't a lock like most would consider Canberra to be.

Chin up lads, still plenty of footy to come.

Perenara is easily the worst ref in the comp. I don't know any ref where multiple teams cringe when he is named.

We were actually supposed to have Checchin who is easily the best ref.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

Yeah, exactly. We've lost games because of him too so none of us were jumping for joy when he got named
We don't have the best winning rate under Checchin either, but I'd still have preferred him. Hate to see **** call happen during a game which can affect the outcome.

[gangrenous]

As a die hard Warriors fan.. I dunno if you lads have ever watched Henry referee one of our games before, but he's usually just as rubbish with us as he was with your lot last night.

The pass for BMM's try was questionable, sure. But that kinda stuff happens week in, week out, to the majority of sides in the competition. Sometimes you've gotta take the little wins on game day, because bets are you'll get dicked again the following week.

You guys played with heart and I don't think you could be *that* upset with either team coming away with the win. You'll likely be there at the pointy end of the season, we're getting better but aren't a lock like most would consider Canberra to be.

Chin up lads, still plenty of footy to come.

Certainly don’t begrudge the Warriors fans taking a win and enjoying it. Especially when you’d been dudded last week it was a little karma. Hopefully the win helps get you to the finals after the two years your team will have faced by then.

On the flip side it was extremely frustrating as a Raiders fan. Yeah those kind of decisions happen in a lot of games (not that it makes them okay), but in the circumstances yesterday where Raiders were already facing a lot of adversity it felt like one thing too many the team should have to deal with. Probably would have been easier to take if Perenara and his ornamental touch judges hadn’t been letting forward passes go all game.

Appreciate the sentiment that you expect the Raiders to be up the top and dropping this game doesn’t mean as much to the Raiders. But to me it does. My concern is that you can’t afford to drop too many games and be top 4 in the end. Raiders missed the top 4 by narrow margins last year and that just about rules out your chances of taking out the premiership. Raiders were out of gas by the time of our prelim and our window is closing. We NEED to be top 4 this year and tilting at the title we’ve waited a long time for. So it’s hard to look at a game like that where imo Raiders were clearly the better team, and Warriors get the points because of injuries and poor refereeing.

[kiwi raider]

Nzwarriors95 is right. As a part time warriors fan(every game apart from against the raiders) Perenara normally murders the warriors.
They got away with with a blatant forward pass but i dont think thats down to bias on Perenara's part, just incompetence.

[Northern Raider]

Perenara wasn't biased. He was just garbage. His 6 again calls were horribly inconsistent and far too often he let markers go early.

That forward pass non-call was as much on the touches. How they all missed it is beyond me.

[gangrenous]

Maybe he was struck by a dilemma like when I watch Roosters v Broncos. I loathe both these teams, how will I handle this...

But in seriousness don’t think there’s been much (any?) discussion that Perenara deliberately had it in for the Raiders yesterday. Just frustration that a blind eye was turned to forward passes all game. Plus 6 again calls seemed lop-sided.

[RedRaider]

IF...Seb Kris had come back on, it would have given us an extra player for rotation and we could have replaced Scott.

One of those days.....we march on

Seb apparently passed his HIA assessment but Doctor's decision was that he could not play again today. So that was that.
In years gone by he would have come back on, probably at right center and the game may have had a different outcome. Long term though, player welfare has to take priority over a single NRL match. Regardless of the game outcome, the club has made the right call imo.

Agree with that and we are seeing a lot more of it. Which is why I think we should be moving along the lines of other sports including the state leagues in our own sports and allowing concussion subs.

I can see the benefits Bay 53. Where would the replacement players come from though? Would it be an extended bench or back to the old days when they formerly had to have played at least half a game in a lower grade. My concern with an extended bench is that there are extra players not getting any game time.

[RedRaider]

Lads I think it's pretty simple. Was that second half tough to watch. Yes it was excruciating. Did the boys play well. Yes, it was the best performance this year. I had my old man criticise parts but like many of you I was having no of it. But frankly deep down I wanted to blame my suffering on someone or something too.

If there was one decision I found perplexing, it was that Kris passed all the tests to return but the dr took one final look at it and decided he shouldn't return. Presumably they have tests to ensure a consistent standard is applied. If he passed all those tests then surely he is allowed to return?

Yes, a very questionable decision considering we had a centre out there playing 70 minutes with a broken rib.

Who's welfare is more important?

The doctor isn’t making a decision of Kris vs Scott
His assessment of Kris is independent of any other factor, as it should be.
He ruled Kris out on the basis of impairment at the time of the head knock
Which is absolutely fair, Kris apparently only just scraped through to protocol, so the doc is always going to err on the side of caution

For Scott I’m sure if you asked the doc, he’d have said get the guy off the park, play with 13, play with 12, 11... he’s not going to care, his duty of care is to the individual players, not the team or game
But he doesn’t have authority to make that call with Scott, he does with HIA’s

The question of who’s welfare is more compromised or important isn’t one his position answers.

That is one of your best ever posts Botman. 100% correct imo.
If a concussion replacement does come into the NRL where do you think the players should come from. An extended bench which means more players with less game time or from players who have played a lower grade.

[Botman]

Yeah I was posting on a thread on LU about that very topic
I’ve been very pro 18th man to can come onto the bench to replace a player put in concussion protocol
They have something like that in nsw I believe

But the idea of having extended benches to 5/6 men with the same number of interchanges was raised and I actually now think that’s the best way to deal with it
Would allow more flexibility in games, more strategy from the coach, but would allow you to not only cover for HIA, but someone like Curtis Scott doesn’t have to play 70 minutes with that rib injury

It might be that two additions come from players who have played lower grades, though that’s tough when there is no lower grade for your team on game day

So probably I think you just say it’s a 6 man bench, 8 interchanges... up to the clubs to manage the roster, which means you probably rotate your specialist back on that bench, and the extra forward... or do you carry a specialist half?

Would you run with, for example Havilii, Sia, James, Sutton, Kris and Guler?

Or would you go with Havilii, Sia, James, Sutton, Kris, Sam Williams?

That’s for coaches to determine
But for me, the sooner they do it the better if we’re serious about player welfare

It takes the pressure off players and coaches to continue to try and avoid HIA protocols and playing hurt because there is more flexibility in being able to replace them without hurting their team

[1992]

Wighton cost us that game by going back to being a retard.

[-PJ-]

Wighton cost us that game by going back to being a retard.

No ****way.

[GreenMachine]

Perenara wasn't biased. He was just garbage. His 6 again calls were horribly inconsistent and far too often he let markers go early.

That forward pass non-call was as much on the touches. How they all missed it is beyond me.

Nailed it.
More rubbish than the other ref's.

[Northern Raider]

Yeah I was posting on a thread on LU about that very topic
I’ve been very pro 18th man to can come onto the bench to replace a player put in concussion protocol
They have something like that in nsw I believe

But the idea of having extended benches to 5/6 men with the same number of interchanges was raised and I actually now think that’s the best way to deal with it
Would allow more flexibility in games, more strategy from the coach, but would allow you to not only cover for HIA, but someone like Curtis Scott doesn’t have to play 70 minutes with that rib injury

It might be that two additions come from players who have played lower grades, though that’s tough when there is no lower grade for your team on game day

So probably I think you just say it’s a 6 man bench, 8 interchanges... up to the clubs to manage the roster, which means you probably rotate your specialist back on that bench, and the extra forward... or do you carry a specialist half?

Would you run with, for example Havilii, Sia, James, Sutton, Kris and Guler?

Or would you go with Havilii, Sia, James, Sutton, Kris, Sam Williams?

That’s for coaches to determine
But for me, the sooner they do it the better if we’re serious about player welfare

It takes the pressure off players and coaches to continue to try and avoid HIA protocols and playing hurt because there is more flexibility in being able to replace them without hurting their team

Allowing concussion substitutes is a must IMO. Raidersost 2 players in one incident early in the match. Last night Eels and Sharks lost 2 players each to concussion. Teams are being penalised for essential safety protocols. We end up with guys like Curtis Scott playing with a broken rib because there was nobody to replace him.

[GreenMachine]

Yeah I was posting on a thread on LU about that very topic
I’ve been very pro 18th man to can come onto the bench to replace a player put in concussion protocol
They have something like that in nsw I believe

But the idea of having extended benches to 5/6 men with the same number of interchanges was raised and I actually now think that’s the best way to deal with it
Would allow more flexibility in games, more strategy from the coach, but would allow you to not only cover for HIA, but someone like Curtis Scott doesn’t have to play 70 minutes with that rib injury

It might be that two additions come from players who have played lower grades, though that’s tough when there is no lower grade for your team on game day

So probably I think you just say it’s a 6 man bench, 8 interchanges... up to the clubs to manage the roster, which means you probably rotate your specialist back on that bench, and the extra forward... or do you carry a specialist half?

Would you run with, for example Havilii, Sia, James, Sutton, Kris and Guler?

Or would you go with Havilii, Sia, James, Sutton, Kris, Sam Williams?

That’s for coaches to determine
But for me, the sooner they do it the better if we’re serious about player welfare

It takes the pressure off players and coaches to continue to try and avoid HIA protocols and playing hurt because there is more flexibility in being able to replace them without hurting their team

I don't think we need extend the bench at all.
What happened yesterday was highly uncanny and irregular.
When was the last time a team lost 3 players in the opening 13 minutes of a match?
Just put it down to unusual circumstances. Sure we should have iced it after being up by 19, but we didn't and I'm not going to blame the 14 players that toiled their asses off to pull off the result.
**** refereeing also didn't help and I almost never complain about the ref's....yesterday was just rubbish officiating of the 6 again and marker movements in particular...

[gangrenous]

Didn’t I hear something similar happened to the Sharks also in the very same weekend.

No point delving into the years of history since the game is faster in the last couple of years (making lost players more critical), possibly more injuries happening, and changes to rules that mean players who would have come back in years past don’t (HIA).

So saying it’s rare is simply not being aware to the current circumstances and responding appropriately before **** hits the fan again and again (also known as the ScoMo approach).

[GreenMachine]

Didn’t I hear something similar happened to the Sharks also in the very same weekend.

No point delving into the years of history since the game is faster in the last couple of years (making lost players more critical), possibly more injuries happening, and changes to rules that mean players who would have come back in years past don’t (HIA).

So saying it’s rare is simply not being aware to the current circumstances and responding appropriately before **** hits the fan again and again (the latter also known as the ScoMo approach).

Sharks lost 3 players within the first 13 minutes? Don't think so.

[Seiffert82]

These days teams seem to lose 1 or 2 players to concussion or game ending injuries often enough to warrant at least one injury substitute.

There are 2 players already named on an extended bench that have been made available to the team in case of an injury during warm up. I don't see why provisions can't be made to have reserve grade players available as an interchange.

[gangrenous]

Sharks lost 3 players within the first 13 minutes? Don't think so.

I didn’t see it but didn’t they lose all 4 by half time?

If that’s right, I wouldn’t be quibbling.

[GreenMachine]

I didn’t see it but didn’t they lose all 4 by half time?

If that’s right, I wouldn’t be quibbling.

It isn't the same...
14 players for 67 minutes is rare as hell...just doesn't happen often.
Remind me when it became unfashionable not to admit that the ref was really **** yesterday and was more than likely a major contributor to the result.
Somewhere it's gone overboard here where the slightest criticism of the ref means we're just just bad losers.

[The Nickman]

I have no problem with an 18th or 19th man replacing a guy ruled out with a HIA, but I’m not a fan of a six man bench.

Changes the whole dynamic of the game.

[gangrenous]

Yes it will be exploited for strategy. So they should consider how it’s done carefully. But we can’t go on risking player welfare and impacting results in games like these.

[The Nickman]

Yes it will be exploited for strategy. So they should consider how it’s done carefully. But we can’t go on risking player welfare and impacting results in games like these.

Honestly, the HIA ruling should come from an independent NRL doctor, NOT the club doctor, and that should prevent any exploitation.

[gangrenous]

I didn’t see it but didn’t they lose all 4 by half time?

If that’s right, I wouldn’t be quibbling.

It isn't the same...
14 players for 67 minutes is rare as hell...just doesn't happen often.
Remind me when it became unfashionable not to admit that the ref was really **** yesterday and was more than likely a major contributor to the result.
Somewhere it's gone overboard here where the slightest criticism of the ref means we're just just bad losers.

Well we’ll have to agree to disagree because I think 13 for 40 mins is not worlds away from 14 for 67 mins, and that you’d agree if you hadn’t backed yourself into a corner.

The ref stuff is beside the point. I’ve said my piece on the ref already. But it’s only because the Raiders are significantly better than the Warriors that the ref was even able to come into that. In a more evenly matched game Raiders were sunk regardless. The injuries had a far greater impact on the score than the ref.

[-TW-]

I didn’t see it but didn’t they lose all 4 by half time?

If that’s right, I wouldn’t be quibbling.

It isn't the same...
14 players for 67 minutes is rare as hell...just doesn't happen often.
Remind me when it became unfashionable not to admit that the ref was really **** yesterday and was more than likely a major contributor to the result.
Somewhere it's gone overboard here where the slightest criticism of the ref means we're just just bad losers.

Well we’ll have to agree to disagree because I think 13 for 40 mins is not worlds away from 14 for 67 mins, and that you’d agree if you hadn’t backed yourself into a corner.

The ref stuff is beside the point. I’ve said my piece on the ref already. But it’s only because the Raiders are significantly better than the Warriors that the ref was even able to come into that. In a more evenly matched game Raiders were sunk regardless. The injuries had a far greater impact on the score than the ref.

Spot on, they only ran through us cause we were absolutely shot.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[greeneyed]

The Raiders were shot, and the Warriors were only running through them because they were shot. The Warriors only won because the referee incorrectly awarded a try to the Warriors on one of those occasions, after throwing a blatant forward pass, that the referee was right there to see!

[GreenMachine]

The Raiders were shot, and the Warriors were only running through them because they were shot. The Warriors only won because the referee incorrectly awarded a try to the Warriors on one of those occasions, after throwing a blatant forward pass, that the referee was right there to see!

Exactly.