Raiders Review with Blake and The Pork

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

Moderator: GH Moderators

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145523
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Raiders Review with Blake and The Pork

Post by greeneyed »

gangrenous wrote: July 6, 2023, 8:25 am Tino can’t be sin binned when his actions didn’t actually prevent the quick tap. Kris (wasn’t it Kris?) still has to wait around for a Raider to be back on side, meaning there was no delay for the Raiders.

Whoever it was should get a rocket if they weren’t injured or obstructed. Because I agree it cost us a sin binned titan.
It was definitely a penalty though.
Image
User avatar
Roy Rover
Chris O'Sullivan
Posts: 989
Joined: July 27, 2005, 1:56 pm
Contact:

Re: Raiders Review with Blake and The Pork

Post by Roy Rover »

gangrenous wrote: July 6, 2023, 8:25 am Tino can’t be sin binned when his actions didn’t actually prevent the quick tap. Kris (wasn’t it Kris?) still has to wait around for a Raider to be back on side, meaning there was no delay for the Raiders.

Whoever it was should get a rocket if they weren’t injured or obstructed. Because I agree it cost us a sin binned titan.
The Pork got something wrong again? :o

I don't believe it! :lol:
User avatar
El_Capitano
Brett Mullins
Posts: 1849
Joined: May 30, 2014, 1:25 pm
Favourite Player: Mal Meninga
Location: Sydney

Re: Raiders Review with Blake and The Pork

Post by El_Capitano »

I don’t know if he did get it wrong, the ref couldn’t know at the time of the interference if our players would get back onside by the time Kris gets to the 20m.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How soon IS now?
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 17005
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Raiders Review with Blake and The Pork

Post by gangrenous »

He got it right. It’s good refereeing to let that play out.

Not to mention the interference coming back was 50/50. The second interference after it was tapped made it a guaranteed penalty and imo a mandatory sin bin had the Raiders been entitled to tap it.
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145523
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Raiders Review with Blake and The Pork

Post by greeneyed »

gangrenous wrote: July 6, 2023, 9:11 pm He got it right. It’s good refereeing to let that play out.

Not to mention the interference coming back was 50/50. The second interference after it was tapped made it a guaranteed penalty and imo a mandatory sin bin had the Raiders been entitled to tap it.
50/50?! He went smack bang directly into Kris to stop him.
Image
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 17005
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Raiders Review with Blake and The Pork

Post by gangrenous »

Yet it had absolutely zero impact on the game.

Maybe I should watch it again. But my impression live was that he hadn’t realised Kris had taken it in goal and that he was going to stop him and then someone called out or he figured it out and didn’t go on with it. Then since there was no detrimental impact on the Raiders the ref let it slide.
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145523
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Raiders Review with Blake and The Pork

Post by greeneyed »

gangrenous wrote: July 6, 2023, 9:26 pm Yet it had absolutely zero impact on the game.

Maybe I should watch it again. But my impression live was that he hadn’t realised Kris had taken it in goal and that he was going to stop him and then someone called out or he figured it out and didn’t go on with it. Then since there was no detrimental impact on the Raiders the ref let it slide.
:cmon
Image
User avatar
Seiffert82
Mal Meninga
Posts: 28538
Joined: March 17, 2007, 12:24 pm
Favourite Player: Bay56

Re: Raiders Review with Blake and The Pork

Post by Seiffert82 »

Haha, yeah Tino knew exactly what he was doing. The ref just had his back turned.



User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 17005
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Raiders Review with Blake and The Pork

Post by gangrenous »

Went back and watched and I stand by what I said.

With the shots available we can’t really tell what happens with Tino. But he appears relatively stationary, with Kris catching a shoulder on the way past. Relatively light, definitely 50/50 if that for a penalty.

The worse block comes from Randall who actively tries to block, but appears genuinely confused. Looks like the ref might be calling him off and he hasn’t figured out why.

Given it seems genuinely a mistake for the major component I think it’s good refereeing to not blow a penalty before confirming it was detrimental to the attacking team.
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145523
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Raiders Review with Blake and The Pork

Post by greeneyed »

I think we could forgive Tino for brushing Kris, but Randall very clearly attempts to tackle Kris! He even wraps the arms, attempted to tackle front on. It's an obvious penalty. The referee might have thought... let's play on and see what happens. But when there is no advantage in playing on, the referee must go back for such a blatant offence. The only excuse might be the referee thought there was more advantage in allowing a seven tackle set and a 20 metre tap...
Image
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 17005
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Raiders Review with Blake and The Pork

Post by gangrenous »

But the penalty is for obstructing the player getting to make the quick tap. Which he made with spare time. So there’s nothing really to penalise.

Also as I say based on body language it appears to have been without intent.
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145523
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Raiders Review with Blake and The Pork

Post by greeneyed »

gangrenous wrote:But the penalty is for obstructing the player getting to make the quick tap. Which he made with spare time. So there’s nothing really to penalise.

Also as I say based on body language it appears to have been without intent.
Intent is irrelevant. Impossible to even conclude it given he wraps the arms. The bottom line is you can’t obstruct a player trying to take a quick tap. It’s a penalty every day.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Image
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 17005
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Raiders Review with Blake and The Pork

Post by gangrenous »

You seem to be ignoring the bit where he makes no difference to what happens. Therefore there is no obstruction.

The intent is pretty clear from the body language in my opinion. Not that he wasn’t trying to tackle Kris (he was), but he wasn’t trying to deliberately prevent a quick tap(he clearly had no idea why people were yelling at him).
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145523
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Raiders Review with Blake and The Pork

Post by greeneyed »

gangrenous wrote: July 7, 2023, 4:18 pm You seem to be ignoring the bit where he makes no difference to what happens. Therefore there is no obstruction.

The intent is pretty clear from the body language in my opinion. Not that he wasn’t trying to tackle Kris (he was), but he wasn’t trying to deliberately prevent a quick tap(he clearly had no idea why people were yelling at him).
It doesn't matter. The first offence applies. "Intent" doesn't matter. Players don't mean to pick up the ball in an offside position. Or maybe they do. It's still a penalty. You can't really assess the intent. You cannot tackle the player attempting to take a quick tap. It's a black and white offence.
Image
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 17005
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Raiders Review with Blake and The Pork

Post by gangrenous »

Not the same.

Whether I mean to or not, playing the ball in an offside position disadvantages the opposition.

Intent *does* matter in the case of offside in assessing severity, so I don’t think that aids your position.
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145523
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Raiders Review with Blake and The Pork

Post by greeneyed »

Image

Image

Image



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Image
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 17005
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Raiders Review with Blake and The Pork

Post by gangrenous »

You haven’t even tried GE!

What was the disadvantage to the Raiders?
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 17005
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Raiders Review with Blake and The Pork

Post by gangrenous »

While I’m at it I should make a full pitch for arseclown of the week.

Yes Raiders win a 10-6 record are legitimately ahead of a 10-7 team with one fewer bye. The other team has played an extra game and definitely lost. Raiders have an extra game to play where they can win and go 11-6, while if they lose in the worst case they’re still level at 10-7.

But on a serious note, love the podcast and always listen
User avatar
Roy Rover
Chris O'Sullivan
Posts: 989
Joined: July 27, 2005, 1:56 pm
Contact:

Re: Raiders Review with Blake and The Pork

Post by Roy Rover »

No show this week sorry.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 17005
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Raiders Review with Blake and The Pork

Post by gangrenous »

User avatar
Roy Rover
Chris O'Sullivan
Posts: 989
Joined: July 27, 2005, 1:56 pm
Contact:

Re: Raiders Review with Blake and The Pork

Post by Roy Rover »

Out Now Episode 122 - An Ambush Awaits!

Listen
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 17005
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Raiders Review with Blake and The Pork

Post by gangrenous »

Thanks for the pod

Didn’t do your research on the negative F/A top 4 spot though. GE reported here that Cowboys in 2007 were the first to do that. Finished 3rd with a differential of -71!
User avatar
Finchy
Ruben Wiki
Posts: 5988
Joined: March 30, 2008, 9:59 pm
Favourite Player: Ata Mariota

Re: Raiders Review with Blake and The Pork

Post by Finchy »

gangrenous wrote: July 20, 2023, 8:45 am Thanks for the pod Image

Didn’t do your research on the negative F/A top 4 spot though. GE reported here that Cowboys in 2007 were the first to do that. Finished 3rd with a differential of -71!
I’ve *checked notes* and see the Cowboys had scores of 44, 54, 58, and 64 put on them that year. Incredible they finished 3rd with that level of defence!
Ata Mariota’s #1 fan. Bless his cotton socks.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 17005
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Raiders Review with Blake and The Pork

Post by gangrenous »

On Trevilyan. Given the severity of the injuries he’s returning from we can’t expect him to come back where he was at. Unfortunately it’s probably more in 12 months time when we can assess if he’s got it, or if the injuries have been too damaging.
User avatar
Roy Rover
Chris O'Sullivan
Posts: 989
Joined: July 27, 2005, 1:56 pm
Contact:

Re: Raiders Review with Blake and The Pork

Post by Roy Rover »

gangrenous wrote:Thanks for the pod Image

Didn’t do your research on the negative F/A top 4 spot though. GE reported here that Cowboys in 2007 were the first to do that. Finished 3rd with a differential of -71!
Cheers. Will definitely bring it up if I can remember.
User avatar
Roy Rover
Chris O'Sullivan
Posts: 989
Joined: July 27, 2005, 1:56 pm
Contact:

Re: Raiders Review with Blake and The Pork

Post by Roy Rover »

Out Now Episode 123 - Another Knightmare?

User avatar
Roy Rover
Chris O'Sullivan
Posts: 989
Joined: July 27, 2005, 1:56 pm
Contact:

Re: Raiders Review with Blake and The Pork

Post by Roy Rover »

Out Now Episode 124 - Bateman Returns

Velda
Ken Nagas
Posts: 141
Joined: April 3, 2018, 7:34 pm
Favourite Player: Terry Campese

Re: Raiders Review with Blake and The Pork

Post by Velda »

Was the NRLW result mentioned?
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 17005
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Raiders Review with Blake and The Pork

Post by gangrenous »

Ooh I was the highly coveted listener of the week?!

I had a shocker of a week and only got to listen to the first half of last weeks ep ahead of the Knights game. Was tragic fan enough to go back and listen despite getting mauled, but nearly missed it!
User avatar
Roy Rover
Chris O'Sullivan
Posts: 989
Joined: July 27, 2005, 1:56 pm
Contact:

Re: Raiders Review with Blake and The Pork

Post by Roy Rover »

Out Now Episode 125 - Strange Days

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145523
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Raiders Review with Blake and The Pork

Post by greeneyed »

Ethan Strange joined the Raiders last year, not this year…

viewtopic.php?t=35027

Initially signed for 2023, but released to the Raiders during 2022.

Poor Paul Crawley… 😉
Image
User avatar
Roy Rover
Chris O'Sullivan
Posts: 989
Joined: July 27, 2005, 1:56 pm
Contact:

Raiders Review with Blake and The Pork

Post by Roy Rover »

Glad to see I was able to illustrate my own point that not many people know much about Ethan Strange.

I’m glad I got the Central Coast part right at least.
User avatar
Roy Rover
Chris O'Sullivan
Posts: 989
Joined: July 27, 2005, 1:56 pm
Contact:

Re: Raiders Review with Blake and The Pork

Post by Roy Rover »

Out Now Episode 126 - Sour Times

User avatar
Roy Rover
Chris O'Sullivan
Posts: 989
Joined: July 27, 2005, 1:56 pm
Contact:

Re: Raiders Review with Blake and The Pork

Post by Roy Rover »

Out Now Episode 127 - The Club Loves A Hooker

User avatar
Roy Rover
Chris O'Sullivan
Posts: 989
Joined: July 27, 2005, 1:56 pm
Contact:

Re: Raiders Review with Blake and The Pork

Post by Roy Rover »

Out Now Episode 128 - Rugby League Has Died

Post Reply