[VIDEO] Melbourne Storm vs Sydney Roosters Highlights: NRL scores, blog

damn it ... got busted for being coy ... yep that's the only possible reason i could have been talking about

Yeah saw that number haha, absolutely outrageous. There is literally no counter argument that can be made. The statistics are damning. I'm so glad it's finally out there. Also, people need to stop saying we're the worst disciplined side in the comp. There are 5 teams that have conceded more penalties this year so that argument kind of goes out the window as well

The odds of all 15 teams conceding the least number of penalties against 1 team is 1 in 437,893,890,380,859,400 Where is Tim Gore? The resident stats man.

Finally! Some good media coverage. Unfortunately we'll still have the usual non-sensical people writing it off as the roosters giving away penalties on purpose. But at least there's some solid coverage because the statistics are just too damning to ignore!

Benny, Check out what Buzz has to say tomorrow

It's not the penalties against it's the penalties for! How do people not understand that??

Well Stewart did last week and I guarantee you if it had been the storm in the same position last night, they would have received a penalty. It’s in their DNA. I would also love a link to these ‘several interviews’ where Archer mentions the players who dive all the time and how the refs don’t give them penalties ‘precisely’ for this reason. Oh so everything in the paper is true. My mistake. Your argument is invalid by the fact that you use ‘3 years’. The roosters have been the most penalised side for the past 10 years at least. As of the start of this season, they had a penalty differential of -297 over the past decade, the next worst was -106 (Bulldogs). The Rabbitohs were best with +153. Big surprise there. It can’t be a tactic if it’s been the same for that length of time. That would mean that Ricky Stuart, Chris Anderson, Brad Fittler, Brian Smith and Trent Robinson have all employed the same tactic…highly unlikely. Plus, it would also mean that all 106 players who have played for the roosters in that period have been part of the same ill-discipline. Again, highly unlikely. In regards to SKD, you’ll find that when you tackle a player, you’re usually on top of him. He simply went to the mark, and this had absolutely no impact on the play the ball as he was already on the mark by the time the player attempted to get up, which was when he dropped the ball. Again, what about the storm’s second try which you have failed to mention? The SKD one wouldn’t have mattered had the 2nd one not occurred, which it shouldn’t have. And your argument with Smith makes no sense. You’re basically saying that Smith saying “We wouldn’t want a repeat of last year”, which is implying the referee of cheating, is building a positive relationship with the referee. No, it’s called intimidating the referee into thinking that he will get the same backlash they gave him last year, which is a form of cheating. And it worked, roosters were leading the penalty count 5-3 at the time and it ended up 9-6 to the storm. What I’m suggesting is not sour grapes, it is based on statistical evidence of which I have provided much of. You on the other hand have only provided me with mere assertions and a complete lack of evidence to back these assertions up. I am at a loss to say how you could say that what I am suggesting is not real world evidence considering that all the stats I have provided are indeed part of the ‘real world’. They are suggestions based on at least a decade of unfair refereeing and it is something that needs to be looked at by the NRL.

Well Stewart did last week and I guarantee you if it had been the storm in the same position last night, they would have received a penalty. It's in their DNA. I would also love a link to these 'several interviews' where Archer mentions the players who dive all the time and how the refs don't give them penalties 'precisely' for this reason. Oh so everything in the paper is true. My mistake. Your argument is invalid by the fact that you use '3 years'. The roosters have been the most penalised side for the past 10 years at least. As of the start of this season, they had a penalty differential of -297 over the past decade, the next worst was -106 (Bulldogs). The Rabbitohs were best with +153. Big surprise there. It can't be a tactic if it's been the same for that length of time. That would mean that Ricky Stuart, Chris Anderson, Brad Fittler, Brian Smith and Trent Robinson have all employed the same tactic...highly unlikely. Plus, it would also mean that all 106 players who have played for the roosters in that period have been part of the same ill-discipline. Again, highly unlikely. In regards to SKD, you'll find that when you tackle a player, you're usually on top of him. He simply went to the mark, and this had absolutely no impact on the play the ball as he was already on the mark by the time the player attempted to get up, which was when he dropped the ball. Again, what about the storm's second try which you have failed to mention? The SKD one wouldn't have mattered had the 2nd one not occurred, which it shouldn't have. And your argument with Smith makes no sense. You're basically saying that Smith saying "We wouldn't want a repeat of last year", which is implying the referee of cheating, is building a positive relationship with the referee. No, it's called intimidating the referee into thinking that he will get the same backlash they gave him last year, which is a form of cheating. And it worked, roosters were leading the penalty count 5-3 at the time and it ended up 9-6 to the storm. What I'm suggesting is not sour grapes, it is based on statistical evidence of which I have provided much of. You on the other hand have only provided me with mere assertions and a complete lack of evidence to back these assertions up. I am at a loss to say how you could say that what I am suggesting is not real world evidence considering that all the stats I have provided are indeed part of the 'real world'. They are suggestions based on at least a decade of unfair refereeing and it is something that needs to be looked at by the NRL.

You'll find that Slater, et al. don't get awarded many penalties chasing a kick precisely because they do dive all the time. Archer has confirmed this in several interviews. The Roosters do have a reputation for giving away penalties to slow the game down. It's been written about in every League publication, as well as acknowledged by the governing body and the referees. It's been going on for 3 years. I never said SKD was on top when the error occurred, I said he impeded a correct play the ball by not clearing to the side. This has been the interpretation this year, and has been adjudicated consistently in my opinion. As for Smith talking to Klein, that's what a smart captain does. The last person you want to be offside with is the referee. I would expect any captain to be conferring with the referee in play breaks, to ask them about their interpretations and build a positive relationship. What you're suggesting is the result of sour grapes, and not real word evidence.

Oh your lack of common sense makes my head hurt. The roosters do not purposefully give away penalties. That makes no sense. Why would you make yourselves defend more than you need to? Great tactic...just do 40 or 50 extra tackles a game so that you're extra fresh for when you're in attack. 5 of the storm's penalties led to tries (2 of them were back to back), so that 'tactic' makes no sense. SKD was in front of the player well before he attempted to play the ball so going over the top had nothing to do with it. Nevertheless, the Storm player also dropped it in the penalty that led to the try before half time and there is no arguing that one. Also, I encourage you to count the time that each team lay on the tackle player for. The storm (Smith in particular) were allowed to lay down once the tackle was complete for a few seconds more than the roosters in the 2nd half because they knew they wouldn't be penalised. Smith was flopping all night because he knew he wouldn't get penalised. He said in the first half to Klein "Let's not have a repeat of last year" (what a great sportsman he is), and then said at half time, "as long as we cut out the penalties, we'll be right". Spoken by a true fortune teller... What about when Green was denied his try, and Harris obviously took Pearce out of the tackle, something that is illegal and should therefore be penalised. It comes up no try and rather than penalising the storm, the ref politely goes to Smith and lets him know that it's technically illegal to take the player out of the tackle so they probably shouldn't do it again. Thanks Coach Klein. Finally, what about in the last kick off when Tupou was running to catch the short kickoff and the storm player ran in from the wing to block him? Oh but since we didn't take a dive that's not a penalty. I guarantee you players such as Inglis, Slater, Smith and Stewart would have dived there and would have been awarded a penalty and thus won the match. Again, once you come up with some evidence of your argument, or otherwise get some common sense, come back to me. But in the meantime, there is absolutely no way that anyone can honestly say that there is not something dodgy going on here.

Laugh out loud, the storm are in the top 3 in the NRL for most penalised out of all the clubs (2nd equal with the chooks). Last night was a high quality match - probably the best display of football we have had all season. Both teams were excellent. And we have fans calling it a rort.

Of course he was directly in front of the player, he cleared the ruck over the top of the player instead of to the side. The reffree said then, as he had done 4 times previously, that the players must clear to the side and not walk over the top. You can only blame the Roosters players for not listening. They have a reputation for giving away penalties to slow the game down. The refs know about it. So they adjudicate accordingly.

Pomski i would prefer to fly under the radar;) my money is still looking pretty good so i don't want the odds to change as i have some burning a whole in my pocket & i know where it's going:)!!

No I think you'll find that the roosters player was directly in front of the player, right on the mark. The storm player went to put the ball down and dropped it cold. That's a knock on. The difference is that the storm try and play for penalties whereas roosters don't.

We both know that's what you mean when you bring up Bellamy, Maguire, and 'tactics'. Don't be coy.

It was announced at the start of the year that the ruck area would be penalised differently. If a player drops the ball as a result of a defending player not clearing the ruck area to the side, it's a penalty. It's beenadjudicated that way all year. Roosters weren't clearing to the side and disrupted the play the ball. Penalty any day of the week.

It was announced at the start of the year that the ruck area would be penalised differently. If a player drops the ball as a result of a defending player not clearing the ruck area to the side, it's a penalty. It's beenadjudicated that way all year. Roosters weren't clearing to the side and disrupted the play the ball. Penalty any day of the week.

Not me mate, I thought your pack was up there with the best in the comp... if they played to their potential. I thought the Roosters were real good last night, so a good win for your crew.

Yeah as Robinson said, most weeks when two teams play like that they'll win

Yes! Storm! Top of the table. Before the season people and so called "experts" were writing us off saying we couldn't make the top eight. So happy as a storm fan. We're just like the San Antonio Spurs, people keep telling us that our "Big 3" are too old and slow but we make up for it with our young talents. The likes of Kurt Mann, Marika Koirebete, Felise Kaufusi and Cameron Munster are the future of the Melbourne Storm.