Momentum changers.

[wendog33]

That's not the case according to the Doomers & Gloomers

Don't be a Stirrer lol

 

[D- voice]

Go back to the start and watch how they slow peel then the first repeat set goes to them for nothing! its the biggest rort in the game just a stupid rule

It's designed to rort the games.

 

[D- voice]

Don't be a Stirrer lol

It's not funny when they are quick to criticize the club/team.

 

[wendog33]

It's not funny when they are quick to criticize the club/team.

True.

 

[GoTheDoggies]

Atkins is a gronk. He is Sutton 2.0

That is twice now this idiot has penalised us for tackles that were too tough yet 100 percent legal.

Josh Reynolds on Sloan last season where Josh swore at him for the disgraceful leg up penalty.

Now he penalised Hughes for a tough tackle on Suaallii. Another leg up when they were trapped on their 30m line. He is a joke of a referee.

We have no choice but to build the club to a position where referee influence doesn’t impact our results. Become so strong in both attack and defence that even if they try to dud us it has minimal effect.

 

[wendog33]

Atkins is a gronk. He is Sutton 2.0

That is twice now this idiot has penalised us for tackles that were too tough yet 100 percent legal.

Josh Reynolds on Sloan last season where Josh swore at him for the disgraceful leg up penalty.

Now he penalised Hughes for a tough tackle on Suaallii. Another leg up when they were trapped on their 30m line. He is a joke of a referee.

We have no choice but to build the club to a position where referee influence doesn’t impact our results. Become so strong in both attack and defence that even if they try to dud us it has minimal effect.

That's a pretty high bar to set but nevertheless looks like that is what's required!

 

[cookieman909]

That’s why I said in another thread people need to get over the whole 13 v 12 BS. The referee was there 13th player. He single handedly pulled them back in. And even with a man down. Momentum is a massive factor, even with a man down. Boys dug deep to get the win. Also forgetting we were down to a 2 man bench once Taafe went off. And still had King, Mann, Tracey, Kiks playing busted. Pretty sure at the end of the game it was a single player bench, that’s even with Sexy being activated. Crazy brave win.

 

[CCC]

And that’s why I hate the six again so much, no one knows what the fuck they are for including the reff

smells of the influence of Betting Companies....pay one person off to swing momentum to get an outcome

 

[Harry Oz]

Ok we got a messy win and all. I not long watched it on you tube. Obviously we were incredible in the first half absolutely crap in the second. But when momentum changes that much I am very suspicious. I was curious about the dispensation of 6 again calls through the game. So I noted them down.

Nothing was too one sided until we got to 20 points. From then til the end of the first half they got 3 repeat sets on the 4th to get them off their own line.

Second half
There was a 6th minute penalty from the scrum close to the roosters line, from which they got to start the set from the 30m line. Shit defence let them score their first. We had the momentum until this point. We finished sets deep in their end.

8th minute- head slam penalty on Suallii who's head didn't come in contact with the fucking ground as far as I saw watching the replay of it three times. At least the prick sat out for the HIA.

9th minute. 4th tackle repeat set for ruck infringement that was called before the tackle was completed.

9th minute. A second repeat set on the fourth which lead to the 11th minute try.

The roosters had momentum from there and scored in the 15th, 16th and 19th minute.

We snatched our next try after 23 minutes. For the first time in ages we got enough ball to hit their 20m line and got the bomb up. Smith threw a forward pass and we got one shot in good field position which Burton scored from.

We got just the one penalty from the time we hit 20 points unless I missed something. We got zero repeat sets that I noted either. So 55 or so minutes of the game where the roosters were perfectly disciplined and we were constantly making ruck infringements I didn't see.

So it was a really shit half of football. But the chooks were getting leg ups to get them out of their end from the point we were 20 in front. It continued until they hit 20 points. We got one penalty in that same period, no repeat sets (verse 2 penalties and 5 repeat sets in the fourth tackle). Were probably just lucky the turd let up a bit from the 23rd minute.

In the end it's allowing me to feel a bit better about the win. If I were the club I'd still be asking for an explanation from Annesley. I don't think the turnaround was incredible work from the Roosters. They capitalised on the calls, but the timing of those penalties and 6 again calls was very much what got them in field posession to score 20 points IMO.

Pisses me off a bit. But we still fucking won so I'm proud of the boys. Looks less like a massive capitulation when you see the pattern of how the games turned around via refs calls. If we can beat quality rosters when they're getting these type of calls, we're looking better than I thought.

I don't believe the referees are corrupt or that actual game results cn be 'bought' for betting or whatever.
My suspicion is more along the lines of the NRL is too close to the gambling industry.
V'Landys has actually said that he sees gambling as 'entertainment', additional to the entertainment of the game. He says the two go together as 'entertainment'.
What this comment by V'Landys in Las Vegas of all places meant, and everyone from clubs to players and referees would have heard, is it is their job to produce a game that is entertaining and attracts punters, and keeps the NRL's online betting partners and sponsors happy.
Friday's game was a classic as the two halves were so different. The referee seemed to be officiating quite fairly in the first half.
But the second half penalties, 6 agains and failure to enforce flops in tackles etc etc were like chalk and cheese when compared with the first half.
So what happened at half time? As it is obvious a clutch of referees got together at half time to talk about how they were going.
What was said?
I don't believe they looked at the first half and asked 'how can we help Roosters win?'
I don't believe they're engaged in that level of corruption. If that was the case eventually there would be a whistleblower.
I think it is more nuanced.
At half time the referees will have asked what have we missed?
And someone will have said well maybe Bulldogs are getting away with x, y and z, whatever.
But, more importantly, my belief is they have discussed how can we make this game still exciting and something everyone will talk about for the next week? To encourage more gambling 'entertainment' as V'Landys has said he wants from NRL.
And the referees see themselves as part of NRL. It's who pays their salaries.
Well, they certainly achieved a more exciting and entertaining game.
Personally, I wanted Bulldogs to win 52-0. And I did not want to be asking my wife to keep the defibrillator handy.
But 52-0 would have been a disaster for the betting agencies.
30-26 is much better.
Job done.
V'Landys happy.
NRL + Gambling = entertainment

 

[wendog33]

I don't believe the referees are corrupt or that actual game results cn be 'bought' for betting or whatever.

Harry what you posted is the very definition of corruption.....managing the results and outcomes of the game scores and flow of the game between the combatants....that is cheating and intervening in the natural progression of the ebb and flow of the 2 opposing teams play.

Your post explained the manipulation by referees perfectly to artificially deliver game management and results.

 

[Harry Oz]

I agree.
Maybe it is just semantics?
What I meant is the referees are not receiving money for providing a specific outcome. And therefore not specifically corrupt.
If referees are trying to make a game more exciting to keep V'Landys and Sportsbet happy, what Cleary called 'game management' is considered a form of corruption, I'm not going to argue with that.
But my intended point was there is no evidence referees are going any further than that, and there is no evidence they're receiving payments additional to their salaries for specific results.
We only have evidence they have refereed two halves of the same game in two different ways. And the result was a closer, more exciting game. So the question is who benefits from that?
I say it is the gambling industry and NRL executives.
So yes, both alleged scenarios are forms of 'corruption', but two different types of 'corruption'.
The one we have, which is perhaps worse, is about gambling interests influencing or compromising the way the game is being refereed, rather than saying we want a specific outcome in such and such a game.

 

[wendog33]

I agree.
Maybe it is just semantics?
What I meant is the referees are not receiving money for providing a specific outcome. And therefore not specifically corrupt.
If referees are trying to make a game more exciting to keep V'Landys and Sportsbet happy, what Cleary called 'game management' is considered a form of corruption, I'm not going to argue with that.
But my intended point was there is no evidence referees are going any further than that, and there is no evidence they're receiving payments additional to their salaries for specific results.
We only have evidence they have refereed two halves of the same game in two different ways. And the result was a closer, more exciting game. So the question is who benefits from that?
I say it is the gambling industry and NRL executives.
So yes, both alleged scenarios are forms of 'corruption', but two different types of 'corruption'.
The one we have, which is perhaps worse, is about gambling interests influencing or compromising the way the game is being refereed, rather than saying we want a specific outcome in such and such a game.

Hmmm
All rock and roll to me.

 

[Alan79]

I agree.
Maybe it is just semantics?
What I meant is the referees are not receiving money for providing a specific outcome. And therefore not specifically corrupt.
If referees are trying to make a game more exciting to keep V'Landys and Sportsbet happy, what Cleary called 'game management' is considered a form of corruption, I'm not going to argue with that.
But my intended point was there is no evidence referees are going any further than that, and there is no evidence they're receiving payments additional to their salaries for specific results.
We only have evidence they have refereed two halves of the same game in two different ways. And the result was a closer, more exciting game. So the question is who benefits from that?
I say it is the gambling industry and NRL executives.
So yes, both alleged scenarios are forms of 'corruption', but two different types of 'corruption'.
The one we have, which is perhaps worse, is about gambling interests influencing or compromising the way the game is being refereed, rather than saying we want a specific outcome in such and such a game.

So if they're officiating the game to keep the gambling partner happy, would they be happier if it was a close game, or a result that earned that gambling agent happy would be the one that maximizes profit?

I appreciate your point of view. But I can't help but think the game is deep in suspicious territory by having a gambling partner. The details of the original deal were online at one stage and the initial deal included that the NRL took a 7% cut on the gambling profit. I couldn't say what the current deal is. But it's an absolute conflict of interest to have a gambling sponsor with the potential to have influence on games. Couple that with gag orders on coaches, the continuous addition of grey areas in place of clear rules and the unpredictable nature of the repeat set calls.

I can't help but feel that things would be fixed if the NRL actually wanted to fix them. The fact that there's now an apologist for the referees (Anusley) speaks volumes. I could understand if 1 or 2 games per week had referee controversy, but it's most games now and the NRL refuses to acknowledge there's a problem.

So I'll agree to disagree on the referees motivations. Again I appreciate your point of view, but I haven't been able to watch much NRL without thinking it's corrupt.

 

[Chris Harding]

I recall a period of 15 minutes or so where I realised we had not even had the ball - it was so strange - it was like watching a Roosters win simulation game. The 6 agains were so rapid, I felt I was in a Vegas Casino slot machine section. The commentators had no clue what the 6 agains are for and they have full view of the game. Hughes gets penalised for slamming a hard running aggressive Sualli - anyone who wants to be aggressive can’t be gently treated FFS.

We were not allowed to turn the momentum back in our favour - it was relentless.

And two of their tries were suspect. One looked like it was lost before grounding, the other appeared short of the line from all angles, yet the Bunker had no hesitation awarding them. It reminded me of the Warriors last year when Johnston was shepherded over the line for the winning try.

 

[Chris Harding]

So if they're officiating the game to keep the gambling partner happy, would they be happier if it was a close game, or a result that earned that gambling agent happy would be the one that maximizes profit?

I appreciate your point of view. But I can't help but think the game is deep in suspicious territory by having a gambling partner. The details of the original deal were online at one stage and the initial deal included that the NRL took a 7% cut on the gambling profit. I couldn't say what the current deal is. But it's an absolute conflict of interest to have a gambling sponsor with the potential to have influence on games. Couple that with gag orders on coaches, the continuous addition of grey areas in place of clear rules and the unpredictable nature of the repeat set calls.

I can't help but feel that things would be fixed if the NRL actually wanted to fix them. The fact that there's now an apologist for the referees (Anusley) speaks volumes. I could understand if 1 or 2 games per week had referee controversy, but it's most games now and the NRL refuses to acknowledge there's a problem.

So I'll agree to disagree on the referees motivations. Again I appreciate your point of view, but I haven't been able to watch much NRL without thinking it's corrupt.

No profit in letting the favourites win.

 

[Chris Harding]

Biggest negative was the woeful way the Flunker checked tries by Whyte and Manu.

Do you think we'd have those tries awarded to us?

 

[TwinTurbo]

No profit in letting the favourites win.

There easily could be, firstly it depends on the odds, these days that's all of the odds and where the big money is placed. Starting with the score line and where the betts fell. For example if a lot of people picked Chooks 13+ at poor odds then it may well be more profitable if that happens. Conversely if the odds were hugely inflated for us to win by 13+ and there were some large betts then it may well be more profitable if we win by less than 12.

Unless we know the betting trends it's impossible to work out what result is more profitable.


Always a Bulldog

 

[speedy2460]

And two of their tries were suspect. One looked like it was lost before grounding, the other appeared short of the line from all angles, yet the Bunker had no hesitation awarding them. It reminded me of the Warriors last year when Johnston was shepherded over the line for the winning try.

Biggest problem was the short amount of time the Flunker took to assess the tries.

 

[Alan79]

No profit in letting the favourites win.

Sometimes there might be. If you consider multis and everything, there might be occasions where there's a huge contingent of emotional betters (wanting to enhance the win by betting in your team) backing a team that the refs can normally demolish.

If you have a ref and all match day officials able to push for predetermined results you could afford to adjust the odds to entice gamblers in.

I'd love for there to be a royal commission which allowed for the flow of betting to be held up against refereeing performances. I think it'd be very interesting results.

 

[Chris Harding]

Sometimes there might be. If you consider multis and everything, there might be occasions where there's a huge contingent of emotional betters (wanting to enhance the win by betting in your team) backing a team that the refs can normally demolish.

If you have a ref and all match day officials able to push for predetermined results you could afford to adjust the odds to entice gamblers in.

I'd love for there to be a royal commission which allowed for the flow of betting to be held up against refereeing performances. I think it'd be very interesting results.

I think it would be hard to determine the outcome of a game, but certainly things like first penalty, try, goal are possible to tweak.