2019 NRL Grand Finals *Spoilers

[tigerbalm]

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.

That's the thing, they really are. Forget the reffing stuff ups, who knows if the raiders would've won. They had their chances. But! The presentation was cringe. Right from the start when the MC had a whisper from Greenbelt right through to the rings, it was just amateur. It made me embarrassed to be a league fan as I know that's probably a game that is viewed by casuals around the globe.

 

[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.

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.

Well the fact that the opportunity was stolen from them leaves them wide open to criticism. Disgraceful.

 

[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.

Well the fact that the opportunity was stolen from them leaves them wide open to criticism. Disgraceful.

Maybe, but hardly robbed.

 

[BZN]

G'day @rustycage: that's good wording re your "rubbing the Fans Faces in the Faeces" :scream_cat:, and I agree totally with your post.

To change that ruling made it twice as bad.

For Trent Robinson to pretend he didn't know what the journo was asking re the changed ruling, made it worse still IMO. What a bloody fool!!!

Then, for Annesley to talk fluff in answering the pertinent question, made it worse still.

I hope Sticky tears the NRL apart :rage:

The NRL is a disgrace :angry: :angry: , and the refereeing system isn't much better :angry: .

Can someone please advise me of an email address for the NRL re a letter of complaint.

 

[ElleryHanley]

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.

The problem is, and always has been, nepotism.

Rather than appoint professionals to run the game, like most other sports do, the NRL constantly coughs up jobs for mates / those in the game.

Greenburg is so, so far out of his depth.....has no idea, responds to media pressure only, no vision...

And the end result is the current mess.

 

[BZN]

G'day @Tcat: it looks to me from this photo, the trainer by pointing and flapping his arm around might also be trying to distract the attention of the defence.

 

[851]

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.

Wighton said after the game, if I heard the ref change the call I would have put a kick in to the in goal

 

[Russell]

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.


Wighton said after the game, if I heard the ref change the call I would have put a kick in to the in goal

Of course he did.

If half the Rorters team hadn't been tackled they would have scored too.

 

[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.

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.

Well the fact that the opportunity was stolen from them leaves them wide open to criticism. Disgraceful.

Maybe, but hardly robbed.

No, robbed sums it up pretty well. You and a few others just seem to like to argue for the sake of it.

 

[BZN]

G'day @fibrodreaming: if there was a way to hit the like button 4 times re your post, I would. But I can't.
So I have to do it this way...LIKE...LIKE...LIKE...LIKE :smiley:

 

[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.

Well the fact that the opportunity was stolen from them leaves them wide open to criticism. Disgraceful.

Maybe, but hardly robbed.

No, robbed sums it up pretty well. You and a few others just seem to like to argue for the sake of it.

Robbed is if you score legally and then have the try not awarded.

You are not robbed if you may have scored and if this went your way or that went your way.

Too many people on here that hate the Rorters no matter what they do.

Well what they did, was win the game.... and you can't argue with that.

 

[innsaneink]

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.

Well the fact that the opportunity was stolen from them leaves them wide open to criticism. Disgraceful.

Maybe, but hardly robbed.

No, robbed sums it up pretty well. You and a few others just seem to like to argue for the sake of it.

Robbed is if you score legally and then have the try not awarded.

You are not robbed if you may have scored and if this went your way or that went your way.

Too many people on here that hate the Rorters no matter what they do.

Well what they did, was win the game.... and you can't argue with that.

Many hate the Raiders too and have done so for 30 years, openly admitting it... Hypocrite

 

[colinbh]

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.

I will spell it out for you as clearly as possible.

How many times has the original decision to award a line drop out or a 25 meter tap been changed because the original call was incorrect? Or when a try is awarded and then not? The list is endless.

In the end the correct call was made. Build a bridge.

 

[cochise]

To change that ruling made it twice as bad.

For Trent Robinson to pretend he didn't know what the journo was asking re the changed ruling, made it worse still IMO. What a bloody fool!!!

Then, for Annesley to talk fluff in answering the pertinent question, made it worse still.

I hope Sticky tears the NRL apart :rage:

The NRL is a disgrace :angry: :angry: , and the refereeing system isn't much better :angry: .

Can someone please advise me of an email address for the NRL re a letter of complaint.

See I told you we would eventually agree on something! That time has arrived.

 

[fibrodreaming]

How many times has the original decision to award a line drop out or a 25 meter tap been changed because the original call was incorrect? Or when a try is awarded and then not? The list is endless.

Those decisions relate to how the game is to be re-started. They happen during a break in play.

Last night's overturned decision happened on the run. The Raiders saw the original decision but did not hear about the overturn, so they didn't react to the new decision and were thereby disadvantaged.

 

[Chicken_Faced_Killa]

@formerguest I’m not sure as I was at the game live and didn’t see exactly where he was but knew the rule and why the roosters got the feed. If he was in the Canberra attacking half they have actually got the call completely wrong.

 

[OzLuke]

how many times this year has a call been stuffed up by the refs and they let play go on, only for them to say that they can't do anything about it?

If he says 6 again and he gets the call wrong, then it's consistent with how it has been for years

If the raiders score on that play and the ref calls the video ref to check it, consistent

What isn't consistent is the ref changing his decision mid-play

 

[OzLuke]

play of the day, to switch to a positive, was watching JT smack Robinson with a question he clearly didn't like, then to watch the germ squirm around when JT didn't back down...good on you Thurston!!!!

 

[Tweed_Tiger]


 

[tigerbalm]

@OzLuke

I noticed a bunch of play the balls last night where the man playing the ball was on a 45 degree angle. Nofa on the other hand...Penalty in front.