NRL 2019 NRL Grand Final: Sydney Roosters v Canberra Raiders

Aucklander

The Ultimate Warrior
May 3, 2003
15,743
4,643
Warriorville
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
NZ Warriors, Wallan FNC
I'm not even convinced it was the right decision.

The attacking team gets the advantage, right?

Except in this situation we were at the 6th tackle and they'd made the kick that had been charged down and the ball was going in the opposite direction - so they're no longer the attacking team.

If it's a grey area of the rule, I guess there's not much you can do. But I'm blown away if the intent of the rule is that the team who've kicked on their 6th tackle get the advantage cos their own trainer got in the way.
It was bloody harsh, but right. Let's get trainers spending less time on the ground.
 

nobbyiscool

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 11, 2006
12,717
13,976
Democratic People's Republic of Victoria
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Raiders/TasTigers/MV/Iggles
What a backpage!

I'm happy to see this.

9 have started prosecuting this a little bit, and the Tele have obviously gone hard.

It won't change tonight's result, but something has to change. If the game is too hard to referee, change it. If the referees aren't good enough, change it.

You can't have a ******* debacle that we saw tonight, where one team was f’ed over in front of all of us, in the biggest game of the year.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

eddiesmith

Hall of Famer
Jul 12, 2004
48,689
6,072
Junktion Oval
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
England Cronulla
Media (Lachie) interviewing the rooster players saying everything went against them..wow

LOL what a joke
Shocking, they are the reigning premiers, have a $2 million higher salary cap than everyone else and you have to listen to them talking up such a tough, against all odds victory...
 

Chief

Admin
Dec 1, 1999
82,814
54,060
Brisbane
AFL Club
Carlton
Yeah, they have. It came off his head/shoulder. Was 5th tackle. And was called multiple times after the initial 6 again was called (took some time).
And had the ref not screwed up, Raiders would have played accordingly.

We can’t run it again to see the outcome, so it’s just suck it up, put an * against this year, move on. And sack the ref.
 

RFCGloryJC

🏆🏆🏆1980, 2017, 2019 👑
Jun 13, 2018
5,830
17,294
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Inter Milan
Expect that Daily Telegraph will go in hard against NRL because The Tele is the media partner of Channel Seven.
Channel Nine pays a fortune for league media rights.
 

Andrew Mc

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 17, 2003
14,146
8,559
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Manly, Bills, Ducks, Leafs
And had the ref not screwed up, Raiders would have played accordingly.

We can’t run it again to see the outcome, so it’s just suck it up, put an * against this year, move on. And sack the ref.
Not passed when in open space?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Aeons

All Australian
Oct 1, 2017
704
1,756
Bairnsdale, Vic
AFL Club
Richmond
ag
It has to be CLEAR CUT that he would've scored ( which , if anyone had watched the Raiders all year , they'd know he's been on a ******* rampage since post-origin and was ALWAYS going to score )
Broncos fan here, been watching league for a long time...Agree...a bloke that big that close to the line (2 metres)would have absolutely scored, hence should have been a penalty try. The other ruling was hideous, you cannot call six again and then change the call before the play is completed, absolutely farcical. the roosters were also allowed to scrag the raiders in the tackle and slow down their play the balls all night...
 

Andrew Mc

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 17, 2003
14,146
8,559
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Manly, Bills, Ducks, Leafs
Had to be a repeat of something come on eventually after the NRL GF - Rambo it is! Still, they waited well long enough this year.
 

Andrew Mc

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 17, 2003
14,146
8,559
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Manly, Bills, Ducks, Leafs
Just looking through the stats on NRL.com - most as expected. But there is an "Ineffective tackles" stat. 37 to the Roosters, 1 to Canberra.Would love to know how they judge those! Although, 1 offload to Roosters, 20 to Raiders, I guess that explains it mostly...
 
Nov 8, 2000
76,552
62,060
Ask me tomorrow
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Cronulla, Dallas Cowboys, Forest
Correct decision in the end as it turned out.

The six again was corrected immediately and shouted out 4 times. The Raiders seemed to be playing with great urgency as though it was the last tackle anyway.

Do you call it correctly and rob the Raiders of a chance to get a kick in to the in goal for another six tackles, or do you call it incorrectly and give the Raiders six more tackles on the Roosters line?

They weren't robbed, at least nowhere near as much as the Roosters might have been had the six tackles stood.

I dislike the Roosters btw.
 

raskolnikov

Premium Platinum
Apr 1, 2002
28,820
21,614
Central Queensland
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Lions
Correct decision in the end as it turned out.

The six again was corrected immediately and shouted out 4 times. The Raiders seemed to be playing with great urgency as though it was the last tackle anyway.

Do you call it correctly and rob the Raiders of a chance to get a kick in to the in goal for another six tackles, or do you call it incorrectly and give the Raiders six more tackles on the Roosters line?

They weren't robbed, at least nowhere near as much as the Roosters might have been had the six tackles stood.

I dislike the Roosters btw.
The Raiders were robbed. They would have gone for the field goal if it hadn't been called six again.
 
Nov 8, 2000
76,552
62,060
Ask me tomorrow
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Cronulla, Dallas Cowboys, Forest
The Raiders were robbed. They would have gone for the field goal if it hadn't been called six again.
Perhaps, no guarantee they would have got it though. Again, the call was wrong and it was corrected. There was still plenty of time to pull back a 1 point deficit anyway. A 6 point deficit after an extra 6 tackles from a wrong call ... well wouldn't we be sitting here talking about that howler instead?
 

Top Bottom