2019 NRL Grand Finals *Spoilers

[Russell]

Anyone clean up the commentators room? They made a huge mess during thr game......

:::

Spoiler Text

:::

It's bloody horrible isn't it? I don't know how people watch ch 9 all year.

Two reasons:

1 Cost.

2 Bwaithe.

 

[Russell]

@diedpretty agreed. Like in golf, if your ball hits you, your bag, your playing partners bag, etc you get penalised.

Cept it isn't golf, thank God.

 

[gallagher]

Anyone clean up the commentators room? They made a huge mess during thr game......

:::

Spoiler Text

:::

It's bloody horrible isn't it? I don't know how people watch ch 9 all year.

Two reasons:

1 Cost.

2 Bwaithe.

1. Costs me $12.50 a month
2. Yeah, hes bad too but 9 has half a dozen of them.

 

[Russell]

Finally after 32 pages - someone makes sense.

You'r easily pleased.

There is no way that Raiders would have scored

Where did you buy your crystal ball ? I'd like to get one.

I am just so glad “it was payback time”

Ah, now I understand where you'r coming from.

Not a great fan of the Rorters, but they were the better side.

A lot of people don't agree.

A lot of people on here saying Raiders were robbed and would of won,

Their crystal ball is no better and no worse than mine.

 

[rustycage]

No guarantees the raiders would have scored, but the opportunity to do so was ripped from them. It's always about building pressure. Sustained pressure almost always results in points. Robbed of the opportunity to score in that instance sums it up.

 

[Telltails]

In a close GF there are always going to be decisions that are controversial that will be discussed, but to call six more and then change the call at the position on the field at 8 all with 10mins to go - not acceptable.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

You just can't have a situation where one ref can wave six again and dramatically impact the play...and one says no. There were80 000 people screaming, so all the players would have known was the CLEAR six again signal.

Annesley is delusional rattling on about the sec ref ovveruled and they called it out four times. No waya player can be expected to see one signal and then try to listen out for a contradictory call with 80 000 people yelling.
.

It wasn’t six again . In the end the right call.
Cronk getting 10 was the wrong call.

I'll spell it out for you as clearly as possible.
Whether it was the right call or not doesn't matter; it's the changing of the decision at a crucial time. If they had known it was the last, they would have played differently. It's not hard to understand mate.

So you would prefer the wrong call?
Nobody actually knows if the Raiders heard them call last tackle (4 times apparently) but are jumping to conclusions.

Bit ignorant to suggest they didn’t hear the call. What you are suggesting is that with 10 minutes to go in a grand final with the scores level, they were happy to take the tackle on the last in the attacking 20. Unlikely.

Bit ignorant to jump to conclusions without any evidence I’d think. I wasn’t saying anything except nobody on here knows for sure if they heard the call or not... including you. Thanks anyway for offering nothing but another guess.

Of course nobody knows for sure, but common sense gives you a good indication sometimes.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

No guarantees the raiders would have scored, but the opportunity to do so was ripped from them. It's always about building pressure. Sustained pressure almost always results in points. Robbed of the opportunity to score in that instance sums it up.

They didn’t have to score. They could have kicked a field goal, got a penalty etc. It was a game changer.

 

[InBenjiWeTrust]

@hobbo1 Correction,
"To reverse the 6 again call in favour of the Rorters would not have happened to the Tigers, definite fact!

 

[diedpretty]

@diedpretty agreed. Like in golf, if your ball hits you, your bag, your playing partners bag, etc you get penalised.

Cept it isn't golf, thank God.

May as well be. Because it certainly isn't rugby league. It's some bastardised poor imitation of the game.

 

[Tigerlily]

@diedpretty agreed. Like in golf, if your ball hits you, your bag, your playing partners bag, etc you get penalised.

Cept it isn't golf, thank God.

May as well be. Because it certainly isn't rugby league. It's some bastardised poor imitation of the game.

Isn’t it the same in cricket? I think if the ball hits the spare helmet that’s on the ground a couple of meters behind the wicket keeper it’s an automatic 6 runs to the batting team. So typical of the NRL to stuff up the obvious....

 

[GNR4LIFE]

@diedpretty agreed. Like in golf, if your ball hits you, your bag, your playing partners bag, etc you get penalised.

Cept it isn't golf, thank God.

May as well be. Because it certainly isn't rugby league. It's some bastardised poor imitation of the game.


Isn’t it the same in cricket? I think if the ball hits the spare helmet that’s on the ground a couple of meters behind the wicket keeper it’s an automatic 6 runs to the batting team. So typical of the NRL to stuff up the obvious....

5 runs

 

[rustycage]

No guarantees the raiders would have scored, but the opportunity to do so was ripped from them. It's always about building pressure. Sustained pressure almost always results in points. Robbed of the opportunity to score in that instance sums it up.

They didn’t have to score. They could have kicked a field goal, got a penalty etc. It was a game changer.

Absolutely a game changer. The raiders had a couple of chances especially the BJL balls up, but at some point with that field position and the roll they had, something may well have taken place. So the smug rorters crew get to celebrate (including turncoat Tedesco) whislt the rest of the rugby league world shakes their collective heads and the heirachy bury theirs.

 

[Russell]

No guarantees the raiders would have scored, but the opportunity to do so was ripped from them. It's always about building pressure. Sustained pressure almost always results in points. Robbed of the opportunity to score in that instance sums it up.

They didn’t have to score. They could have kicked a field goal, got a penalty etc. It was a game changer.

They could have knocked on, kicked it over the dead ball line, produced a blatant forward pass, missed kicked the ball, played the ball incorrectly, had the ball stolen from them etc. etc.

During the game they had untold opportunities to score a try and could only break the Rorters defensive line once.

The chances of them doing it a second time looked very slim to me. Just not good enough.

 

[JD Tiger]

I think the referees changing their mind the way they did was completely inappropriate, and was completely unfair.

But on thinking about it, I am pretty sure I have seen that before. I am almost certain I have seen teams attacking on the last and there's some sort of ricochet and the referee still has his hand in the air signalling last, then he changes to six again.

I'm not sure if I've seen it change the other way, from six again to last, but I think it highlights something more significant. The referees may not really be biased, but they have a reputation for not being completely impartial and suspected of determining games because there is so much subjectivity in what they do. Every year it changes, this year for example, the defence is running up a lot quicker than in previous years, and they are holding them down a lot longer as well (that's for every team, across the year). The protection of the play-makers by severely punishing players for touching them just half a moment after they have passed it was another example of changing the rules interpretation.

The rules need to be consistent, they need to be objective, and they need to stop changing at the behest of NRL hierarchy, teams whingeing, or pressure from media.

Otherwise, what will they nitpick on and focus on next year? It's ridiculous...

 

[BZN]

G'day @gallagher: You must have more :moneybag: :moneybag: :moneybag: than me by the sound of things.

When you are a poor pensioner like I am 😱lder_man: :disappointed_relieved: , after losing 50% of my superannuation in the Global Financial Crisis, by following the crappy advice from my State Super financial consultant :skull_and_crossbones: , instead of my brother's advice to simply take it out of State Super and put it in the :bank: [he lost nothing by doing that] I now can't afford to watch anything else but ch 9.

Have a great :tiger: day.

 

[jirskyr]

@cktiger No way. It was very close, but Cronk definitely got him early, which probably impacted him dropping the ball, and definitely constitutes a professional foul. Penalty try was not warranted even though he was three metres out, but had to be a sin bin.

Agreed. If Cronk waits until Papalii catches the football, then it might be a different outcome. Very different prospect tackling a bloke not expecting it and without the football vs one with the football already in hand.

Esp. game's most powerful prop vs a little halfback.

 

[Tcat]

Just reading a story on fox sports that JWH was told he won the Clive Churchill medal and was waiting at the stage to collect when Wightons name was called. Hahaha. The NRL are pathetic and should be ashamed of themselves. Also, Sportbet are repaying raiders punters back over $1.3 mil (38000 customers) in bets due to being dudded by the NRL refs.

 

[jirskyr]

I hate the roosters as much as the next guy but you have to give them credit for incredible defence. They were gone. We can only dream of that sort of commitment in defence.
For the record, I thought the Cronk sin-bin was poor. You can knock a blokes head off and get put on report but be a micro-second early on a tackle and get 10 minutes just doesn't make sense. The professional foul rule needs to be reviewed.
The reversing of the six again call - which appears was actually correct - is something I've never seen before. I can only imagine it was over-ruled by Sutton. Whilst it changed that play, I think it's a stretch to extrapolate a Raider's win if it didn't happen.
They just played the audio on nine and Sutton over-ruled. Three times they called 'still last'.


Yes I agree, as much as it pains me to say this. Canberra have no one to blame for losing that game except themselves. They had ample opportunity to take the game when the Roosters were on the ropes for the most part, but they just could not deliver the knockout punch. Even if they got that 6 again, I really don’t think they would’ve scored.

That’s absolute rubbish assessment.

No, I agree with Spud. Terrible terrible action by the refs in terms of calling then over-ruling - you simply cannot have that on live decisions, even if it's the correct call, because players play to the whistle. Wighton clearly takes a tackle after seeing the 6-to-go signal, which is also a very clear and notable ref action that players look for after live collisions.

However, Raiders also had a tonne of possession and field position and could never really structure their sets adequately to deliver the knock-out blow. Everyone knew the Roosters had enough natural strike power to only need 1 or 2 line breaks to cut the game open, so Raiders had to hit the front to make Roosters more desperate.

But they couldn't. All that football and they only managed 1 gift penalty goal in the back 60-odd minutes. BJ Leilua arguably bombed a try the only time the Raiders got the ball on the outside of the defenders.

Raiders kept marching up field but couldn't get close enough with the ball to mount crucial attacking sets. Spent too much time crabbing and looking for runners. Isaac Liu mistake gave them a perfect opportunity to lay a platform, plus several repeats, and they couldn't do anything with it.

And that is ultimately the difference between having Cronk-Keary vs Sezer-Wighton, because Raiders couldn't power over more than once and failed ultimately to develop their game, whereas the Roosters halves worked out of trouble then started probing around when the Raiders were tiring/backpedalling.

Roosters did exactly the same to the Storm last week - absorbed a tonne of pressure, even when they looked certain to crack, then probed at the edges late and delivered the knock-out blow themselves.

Because in that fashion Roosters are like the All Blacks or Andre Agassi - they back themselves to defend and make minimal mistakes, then clinically counter-attack at the right moment. I'd mention a soccer team here too, as I know this is how some clubs play on counter, but I don't know the game well enough.

 

[jirskyr]

Orchestrated competition have been saying it last two years wake up people who think it’s anything different.

Why would they orchestrate for a Roosters win? It does nothing for fans, national footprint, junior development, junior involvement etc.