2019 NRL Grand Finals *Spoilers

[Tim Sheens]

You see in most games trainers calling plays or running the defensive line from 10m behind the play.

Very rarely, as they are only allowed on when with the team in possession, else a player down.

 

[rustycage]

It wasn't actually 6 again was it? If Raiders go on to score there after the Ref calls 6 again and win does everyone have a meltdown for Roosters ya reckon?

A referee changing a decision mid play after clearly making one with 10ish minutes to full time in a grand final with scores locked and 82000 people screaming adrenaline pumping.....

For Pete's sake, make a decision and go with it. Fans will be grumpy at a wrong call, but a wrong call that is exaserbated in that fashion is far, far worse. Then for administration to say it was right to do so, well that's just rubbing the fans faces in the faeces.

 

[diedpretty]

Controversial moment as trainer deflection stops potential Raiders try
By Ben Glover

One of the most bizarre moments in Grand Final history has cruelly denied the Raiders what might have been the first try of the game after the Sydney Roosters' trainer unwittingly intervened.

Just over three minutes into the first half of the decider a Sia Soliola charge down deflected the ball behind the Roosters line of attack and with Raiders back-rower Elliott Whitehead favoured to get to the ball first with no defenders in front of him play was cruelly halted.

Soliola's falcon was so powerful that it deflected into the face of the Roosters' trainer, who was about 10 metres away. That forced the referee to stop play and in a cruel twist, the Roosters got to feed a scrum and get a new set of six due to a rule that favours the 'attacking' side in such circumstances. While it was likely possession would have gone to the Raiders if not for the deflection off the trainer, the Roosters were still considered the attacking side as they were the last side to have secure possession.

Naturally, it was a rule that had fans fuming and the significance of the momentum shift wasn't lost on Nine commentators Phil Gould and Andrew Johns. "How is it fair that when a side's trainer accidentally interferes with play, that same side gets to feed a scrum? Absolutely outrageous. Gould: "Well this is amazing. This could have been a huge advantage to the Raiders."What an absurd law. If your trainer interferes with the play, your side should be penalised".

That was rubbish, but that rule exists. If the ball is interfered with, the attacking team gets the scrum feed. I was more offended at the way the weasel was running off smiling

Its another rule that is totally outdated. The rule was developed before teams had multiple trainers running in their backline. It only ever covered the ball hitting the ref or a third party not associated with either team. The rule should be changed - if your trainer interferes in any way with the play whether intentional or not it should be a penalty to the opposition.

 

[gallagher]

Controversial moment as trainer deflection stops potential Raiders try
By Ben Glover

One of the most bizarre moments in Grand Final history has cruelly denied the Raiders what might have been the first try of the game after the Sydney Roosters' trainer unwittingly intervened.

Just over three minutes into the first half of the decider a Sia Soliola charge down deflected the ball behind the Roosters line of attack and with Raiders back-rower Elliott Whitehead favoured to get to the ball first with no defenders in front of him play was cruelly halted.

Soliola's falcon was so powerful that it deflected into the face of the Roosters' trainer, who was about 10 metres away. That forced the referee to stop play and in a cruel twist, the Roosters got to feed a scrum and get a new set of six due to a rule that favours the 'attacking' side in such circumstances. While it was likely possession would have gone to the Raiders if not for the deflection off the trainer, the Roosters were still considered the attacking side as they were the last side to have secure possession.

Naturally, it was a rule that had fans fuming and the significance of the momentum shift wasn't lost on Nine commentators Phil Gould and Andrew Johns. "How is it fair that when a side's trainer accidentally interferes with play, that same side gets to feed a scrum? Absolutely outrageous. Gould: "Well this is amazing. This could have been a huge advantage to the Raiders."What an absurd law. If your trainer interferes with the play, your side should be penalised".

That was rubbish, but that rule exists. If the ball is interfered with, the attacking team gets the scrum feed. I was more offended at the way the weasel was running off smiling

Its another rule that is totally outdated. The rule was developed before teams had multiple trainers running in their backline. It only ever covered the ball hitting the ref or a third party not associated with either team. The rule should be changed - if your trainer interferes in any way with the play whether intentional or not it should be a penalty to the opposition.

They should limit the trainers time on the field. They're just out there coaching.

 

[Sully]

It wasn't actually 6 again was it? If Raiders go on to score there after the Ref calls 6 again and win does everyone have a meltdown for Roosters ya reckon?

Agreed it was not six again when you look at the replay but in the heat of battle and the noise at ground level you look for signals and the ref waved his arm indicating six again. There are hundreds of wrong decisions / errors made by the refs and players, however I have not seen them change the call like they did last evening.

If they had gone on to score the best side would have won as the first try would not have been scored if the trainer was not on the field in the first two sets.

Only the NRL can produce such a controversy in the biggest game.

 

[joebob]

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

 

[Bones]

Controversial moment as trainer deflection stops potential Raiders try
By Ben Glover

One of the most bizarre moments in Grand Final history has cruelly denied the Raiders what might have been the first try of the game after the Sydney Roosters' trainer unwittingly intervened.

Just over three minutes into the first half of the decider a Sia Soliola charge down deflected the ball behind the Roosters line of attack and with Raiders back-rower Elliott Whitehead favoured to get to the ball first with no defenders in front of him play was cruelly halted.

Soliola's falcon was so powerful that it deflected into the face of the Roosters' trainer, who was about 10 metres away. That forced the referee to stop play and in a cruel twist, the Roosters got to feed a scrum and get a new set of six due to a rule that favours the 'attacking' side in such circumstances. While it was likely possession would have gone to the Raiders if not for the deflection off the trainer, the Roosters were still considered the attacking side as they were the last side to have secure possession.

Naturally, it was a rule that had fans fuming and the significance of the momentum shift wasn't lost on Nine commentators Phil Gould and Andrew Johns. "How is it fair that when a side's trainer accidentally interferes with play, that same side gets to feed a scrum? Absolutely outrageous. Gould: "Well this is amazing. This could have been a huge advantage to the Raiders."What an absurd law. If your trainer interferes with the play, your side should be penalised".

no idea why this was an issue... should've been a penalty to the Rorters... you should see how Keary ended up in the air when he got tackled after the kick... not a Rorters fan, I'm just saying the other side of the equation

I agree. Keary ended up on his head after having his legs taken out while in the air but everyone was to busy watching the rebound.

 

[Tim Sheens]

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.

Sure, the initial call was wrong, as so many are each and every week, but they can and are only ever overturned if there is an immediate break in play. It is unprecedented in my memory and that of so many others, which is why there was immediate and continued outrage.

As for Cronk, again, the precedents had been set this season.

 

[cktiger]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Harvey]

NRL deserve the controversy that has been generated.

The referees have been getting worse for the last 5 years & they have just buried their head in the sand.

Last night is the type of garbage that keeps fans away, not a mad Monday celebration making the papers.

 

[Tcat]

@formerguest Mate, you see them on the field all the time when not required. Regardless of whether they are allowed on the field when their team has possession, it shouldn't be allowed. I know you might say, ' But they are there to hydrate or tend to their players after a defensive set'. It shouldn't be allowed and yet another case where rules can be bent.


 

[joebob]

Interesting, that the rugby league rule book says that the referee shall not "subsequently alter their judgement", so the referee didn't follow the rule book. The rule book doesn't say what should happen if they do!

There is a bit in the rule book about the referee accidentally blowing the whistle which results in the attacking team getting a scrum. I think this would have been a fair result as the raiders were not given the opportunity to put in a last play kick, which was probably their best chance to score against the roosters.

The rules need to be updated though, as scrums aren't contested anymore, so it is a big call to give a team a fresh set of 6, like what the roosters got with the ball hitting the trainer. Maybe consider making it a play the ball, with the tackle count continuing.

 

[Tim Sheens]

@formerguest Mate, you see them on the field all the time when not required. Regardless of whether they are allowed on the field when their team has possession, it shouldn't be allowed. I know you might say, ' But they are there to hydrate or tend to their players after a defensive set'. It shouldn't be allowed and yet another case where rules can be bent.


Yeah, not a fan of it either, but you were insinuating that they are organising defensive lines, which is not the case.

 

[Russell]

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'.

Finally after 32 pages - someone makes sense.

I like how no one suggested Nick bought the refs to send Cronk to the bin for 10 minutes.

There is no way that Raiders would have scored - even if Cummins didn't change the call - that would have been a mile too far.

I am just so glad "it was payback time" - now the Raiders know how Balmain felt all those years ago - suck it up.

Not a great fan of the Rorters, but they were the better side. Glad Wighten won the CC medal - easily best on field - Rorters fans were pathetic booing him (wouldn't expect anything else).

Doubt it, but maybe two good things could come out of this GF - go back to one referee and keep the trainers off the field (especially Alfie - he must still get match payments).

 

[Tcat]

@formerguest Yeah, I'm probably wrong about the defensive plays, but I'm going to watch the trainers more closely next season.

 

[cktiger]

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.

 

[fibrodreaming]

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.

 

[hobbo1]

Let’s face facts here ...
To reverse the 6 again call in favour of the Rorters would not have happened to any other NRL team ...fact !

 

[Russell]

Ah, the perpetually offended boofheads. Got to love them.

I’m no fan of the roosters, but they were very good tonight. Good tough game which the best team won.

Move on.

Disagree. The best team lost.

Disagree - the best team won easily imo.