National Rorting League

86Gtown

Kennel Participant
Joined
Apr 28, 2018
Messages
157
Reaction score
46
Cronk was binned for 10 minutes, in that time the Raiders did jack shit. BJ needed to catch and pass for Rapana to score in the corner but decided to take the line on and bombed a certain try. Sezer and Hodgson played poorly for most of the game.
If you look at the replay the call was correct, it shouldn't have been 6 again as the raiders knocked it on before the Roosters had the last touch.
I think they should have stoooed play to allow raiders to realise what had happened since it was the reffs stuff up. They only marched down the other end because raiders had no idea what was going on and were not able to organise
 

86Gtown

Kennel Participant
Joined
Apr 28, 2018
Messages
157
Reaction score
46
The late Jack Gibson said "Rugby League is a game of ifs". If the ref hadn't called six tackles, if the trainer hadn't been in the way, if the winger hadn't dropped the ball, if the defender hadn't slipped over, if the ball hadn't taken a wicked bounce.

I reckon the refereeing decision that turned the game was sin binning Cronk. The Chooks were on their last legs when he was penalised and binned - but they were forced to lift for that ten minutes, and the Raiders couldn't cross the line against 12 men. That gave the Chooks confidence and new lease of energy. Had the Raiders scored a try following that "controversial" refereeing decision - and there was no guarantee that they would have - we would today be talking about how the Chooks were robbed when the replay clearly showed it wasn't six again.
I reckon that most times this season when a player has been sin binned that team goes on to score a try or at least playes the better footy. 2 of the roosters trys were only scored due to unusual circumstances which put them at a disadvantage and caught them off guard if those 2 tries don't happen rorters don't even look like winning
 

Dawgfather

Banned
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
8,835
Reaction score
1,900
I think they should have stoooed play to allow raiders to realise what had happened since it was the reffs stuff up. They only marched down the other end because raiders had no idea what was going on and were not able to organise
I'd need to go back and watch all of that section of the game again, but from what I saw the Roosters were able to make the break because Leilua's tackle on Cordner was around the legs and he didn't have a chance to make it to marker. He compounded that by jogging back really slowly which gave the Roosters the over lap.

Having said all that, my personal opinion is the Raiders were dudded throughout the game and the Roosters seem to score a disproprtionately large number of 'lucky calls' on a regular basis.

People should also go and have a look at their win rate under Gerard Sutton. It's very 'odd' to say the least.
 

Howard Moon

Kennel Addict
2 x Gilded
Premium Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
6,568
Reaction score
3,445
It's pretty harsh to blame Joey when you consider Tapine let the first try in, and gave away three early penalties
 

BULLDOG 4 LIFE

Waterboy
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
88
Reaction score
161
So true. To win you have to legally cheat. And who are the 2 best teams at doing that. Why shock horror its the Rooters and Storm
was at the game with my son and the raiders got fucked hard roosters where laying all over the ruck and off side in just about every set in defence,the refs won the roosters that match.fucking joke of a sport.
 

jmaamary

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 21, 2011
Messages
1,723
Reaction score
592
He did say is “is it 6 again?” but moronically waved his arm to signal before he got the call to say no. He should have kept his hand down waited for the call. It is entirely his fault, anyone that’s played knows that once they saw the arm signal the Raiders players would not even paid any attention to referee, they would have been zoned in and focused on the upcoming set.
 

gbrussell

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
1,483
Reaction score
2,177
People should also go and have a look at their win rate under Gerard Sutton. It's very 'odd' to say the least.[/QUOTE]


We should also remember the bulldogs losing rate under sutton. Round 1 2016 was our last victory under him. Since then 18 straight losses. Sequences of wins or losses under the same referee should not have that sort of disparity. And i am a former junior league referee.
 

Chris Harding

Steam Powered Dog
Premium Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
11,088
Reaction score
11,628
I reckon that most times this season when a player has been sin binned that team goes on to score a try or at least playes the better footy. 2 of the roosters trys were only scored due to unusual circumstances which put them at a disadvantage and caught them off guard if those 2 tries don't happen rorters don't even look like winning
"if those 2 tries don't happen rorters don't even look like winning" - except that they did happen. That's the whole point of Gibson's sage advice.
 

Dogzof95

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 5, 2016
Messages
3,195
Reaction score
2,509
"if those 2 tries don't happen rorters don't even look like winning" - except that they did happen. That's the whole point of Gibson's sage advice.
I think the players went into the game thinking what most fans felt was going to happen, that's what caught them off guard which gave the Roosters the advantage.... otherwise the Roosters never looked like scoring! At the end though, it was like a rigged boxing match, boxer A was smaching boxer B, boxer B lasts till the 12th round, the judges give the win to boxer B!
 

kungfuman

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 12, 2019
Messages
1,250
Reaction score
923
I am a 14 year old big dogs supporter so I wouldn’t know a lot about those times but yes they did win but lucky 2004 came and we showed those rorters how to win and weren’t we the last team to bet them in a grand final
I watched the replay yesterday of 2004 and man didn't we get the bad calls in that game, luckily we had a great side that just played too well.
 

dogluva

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
17,562
Reaction score
8,150
Having said all that, my personal opinion is the Raiders were dudded throughout the game and the Roosters seem to score a disproprtionately large number of 'lucky calls' on a regular basis.

People should also go and have a look at their win rate under Gerard Sutton. It's very 'odd' to say the least.
Yep a 63.16 win percentage with Sutton over the last ten years......

https://afltables.com/rl/misc/Gerard_Sutton.html
 

Kempsey Dog

Kennel Immortal
Premium Member
SC Top Scorer
Tipping Champion
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
23,486
Reaction score
24,813
I think they should have stoooed play to allow raiders to realise what had happened since it was the reffs stuff up. They only marched down the other end because raiders had no idea what was going on and were not able to organise
Was it Cummins that fucked us over on Good Friday last year when he didn't allow Jackson to get back. Remember the play, not certain of offical though
 

Chris Harding

Steam Powered Dog
Premium Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
11,088
Reaction score
11,628
I watched the replay yesterday of 2004 and man didn't we get the bad calls in that game, luckily we had a great side that just played too well.
We were lucky when the Roosters were penalised for running behind a player when they scored before half time. I expected them to get the usual referee call of fair try - but we got the penalty.

Go back to the GF win against Manly, and see where we were awarded a try on the seventh tackle. Nobody realised we had an extra tackle until well after the game- not the Dogs, not Manly. The media was full of it the next day, and didn't Bob Fulton blow up! You'll also see we were denied a fair try- the commentators couldn't believe it was not awarded. Manly were well and truly out of the game, yet their fans reckon the seven tackle try "robbed" them.
Go back further to our win against Balmain at the brand new SFS, where Terry Lamb took out Hanley with a deliberate head high tackle. It was payback for the way Hanley took out our fullback. Baa should have been sent off, yet the referee saw it as OK, and not even a penalty. So we can't always say the refs are against us.
I've always seen those incidents as balancing the bad calls we'd copped all year.
 

wendog33

Kennel Immortal
Premium Member
Ladder Champion
Joined
Aug 6, 2016
Messages
24,741
Reaction score
27,950
When the chairman of the roosters owns over 300 car yards , and owns half of western Sydney then it’s easy to know, he’s even friends with murdoch... who owns the news .. do the math it’s a fucking joke I even said to a mate I just hope a ref doesn’t give the roosters a favour.. nrl is a shambles I only watch for my dogs
Thats right. They can't afford, and wouldn't dare upset that much influence or money involved in the game.
 

086

Banned
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
1,476
Reaction score
332
We were lucky when the Roosters were penalised for running behind a player when they scored before half time. I expected them to get the usual referee call of fair try - but we got the penalty.

Go back to the GF win against Manly, and see where we were awarded a try on the seventh tackle. Nobody realised we had an extra tackle until well after the game- not the Dogs, not Manly. The media was full of it the next day, and didn't Bob Fulton blow up! You'll also see we were denied a fair try- the commentators couldn't believe it was not awarded. Manly were well and truly out of the game, yet their fans reckon the seven tackle try "robbed" them.
Go back further to our win against Balmain at the brand new SFS, where Terry Lamb took out Hanley with a deliberate head high tackle. It was payback for the way Hanley took out our fullback. Baa should have been sent off, yet the referee saw it as OK, and not even a penalty. So we can't always say the refs are against us.
I've always seen those incidents as balancing the bad calls we'd copped all year.
Ancient history though...
 
Top