Yep, that title is deliberately antagonistic, and there’s a good reason for that.
We supporters of the struggling clubs of the last decade want you to know, to truly understand down to your marrow, just how maddening and unjust hearing that sentiment delivered to you feels when you believe that your side has been subject to incidents that have wrongly cost your team the game.
It is enough to drive you berserk.
But here’s the thing about that, all you apoplectic Purple and Tri-Coloured people, you guys have been some of the very worst proponents of delivering that message to us Wests Tigers, Titans, Raiders, Eels, Knights and Sharks fans during the last decade. A ten-year period where your sides have routinely gone deep into the finals while our sides were already propping up bars at Kuta and Patong beaches.
‘“Smith held the player down for an eternity to give his team time to get back and it stopped a try!”
‘“You were going to lose anyway. Your coach is the problem. He’s lost the dressing room.”’
‘“That pass for the winning try was a mile forward! No way should that have been allowed!”
‘“You were going to lose anyway. Your club’s administration is woeful.”’
I could go on and on. Believe me, I could.
We’ve seen the likes of John Cartwright while at the Titans, David Furner while at the Raiders and Dean Pay the other day for the Dogs basically say that the top sides regularly get the rub of the green with rulings and non-rulings because of a latent vibe that the higher ranked side was better and was probably going to win anyway.
A decision in their favour is far less controversial because, well, they were probably going to win anyway…
Bulldogs coach Dean Pay. (Photo by Ian Hitchcock/Getty Images)
While I’m not a guy to accuse officials of bias against my side – mostly because I’ve tried to prove it statistically and failed – I’ve certainly railed against incidents that have cost my struggling side victory against higher-ranked sides and been glibly served up the likes of the lines above.
So when I see the Storm and the Roosters fans going berserk because ‘they wuz robbed’ – and what’s worse against those obnoxious, cheating bastards (respectively) the Sea Eagles and Broncos – forgive me if I feel more than a little Schadenfreude.
Yes, I know it is poor form for me to roll around in a bit of shameful joy. But I’d find it much easier to stop if I didn’t firmly believe that both the Roosters and Storm were going to lose anyway, with or without the contentious issues.
To say this has been an eventful weekend in the NRL is a massive understatement. Following on from Friday night’s brouhaha regarding Bernard Sutton’s sin-binning of Dylan Napa, there was another, bigger eruption in the 52nd minute of the Storm-Sea Eagles clash, when the silicon chip inside Curtis Scott’s head got switched to overload and he repeatedly belted the incessant pest that is Dylan Walker.
The end result was Scott was sent off and Api Koroisau and Walker both got ten in the bin. Unlike the Napa binning, no one had too many problems with any of those calls.
What people did have problems with was when both Koroisau and Walker were allowed back on the field before their ten minutes was up. The Storm officials were ropable that their last moment of personnel advantage they were to have in the game was cut short, denying them two minutes of opportunity to capitalise on the man advantage.
The Fox Sports crew were incredulous that such a mistake could be made, with allegations thrown around about just who was to blame.
That blame will almost certainly get laid at the feet of the NRL’s ground manager at AAMI Stadium. The ground managers are the people responsible for ensuring that the NRL Operation Manual guidelines are correctly carried out at each venue.
That includes how the interchanges happen, who can get into the tunnel and press conferences and what the ground announcer can and can’t say.
The old line spruiked by a player in the 80s that rugby league is a professional sport run by amateurs no longer applies. I work mostly at GIO Stadium in Canberra and our regular ground manager – Brian Roche – is a consummate professional. He has the place running like clockwork and everyone knows he is in charge.
His boss – the NRL Operations Manager – is a bloke called Nathan McGuirk. Nathan has been working in and around NSWRL and NRL rugby league ops since the early 1990s and he knows his job backwards. While he and I have had our disagreements, I have total respect for his knowledge and ability. He is a great Operations Manager.
The problem is that one of his charges seems to have stuffed up and now he’ll have to deal with it. He needs to ensure that ten minutes in the bin is correctly timed by his charges. He needs to give us all confidence that this was an aberration that won’t happen again.
(Photo by Robert Prezioso/Getty Images)
However, just as Gerard Sutton’s (correct) sin-binning of Dylan Napa didn’t cost the Roosters the game, the timing error didn’t cost the Storm the match either.
They were going to lose anyway.
Why? Because there was no Cam Smith there to glue the side together. To focus them. To keep them relentlessly, metronomically on message.
We all just got a little glimpse into the Purple future. If Smith had been on the field he would have ensured that Curtis Scott didn’t get so riled up by Dylan Walker and that he wouldn’t subsequently completely misplace his excrement.
The Storm under Smith are the side that frustrates other players into lashing out. Often they do it deliberately to distract their opponents from their play, to put them off their game plan. Then, when their opponent does lash out with a shove or the like, the whole purple wave floods in to assert dominance. With none, of course, being dumb enough to ever throw a punch.
However – without Captain Cam there – young Curtis allowed serial pest Walker to get under his skin.
Right under his skin. To the point that he couldn’t help himself from smashing Walker repeatedly in the head.
With this incident, we can clearly see that the aura of the Storm is fading and may soon be gone. It sure wasn’t there against the Sea Eagles.
So the timekeeping error didn’t really matter at all. The Storm were going to lose anyway.
Mycall
Guest
Burgess played the ball exactly where he was tackled and granville made no attempt to get in front of him. Burgess was tackled, Granville (in what was once upon a time a flopping penalty as Burgess was already tackled when Granville got on top) was still touching him and he fell to the ground on his back. He then rolled back to where he was tackled to play the ball. Granville never changed his position, never tried to be in front of him at marker. Do you see granville's right arm touching Burgess on his right arm... Indicating that he is not square and he is already knowingly to the right of Burgess when he takes off?
elvis
Guest
Here are the highlights. https://www.nrl.com/news/2018/05/19/match-highlights-cowboys-v-rabbitohs---round-11-2018/ Pause them at 3:46. Burgess is on his back on the ground, Granville is standing square in front of him and that is after Burgess does his roll. And then watch in slow mo Burgess get to his feet and play the ball, he moves about 3/4 of a metre to the left. I see things that other people don't see.
Mycall
Guest
I wouldn't have commented without watching it several times. Burgess was on his back, Granville was also in his back and already to the right of Burgess. Burgess rolled, (and not an extreme 1m roll, he flipped over staying straight). Granville got up standing to the right of Burgess not square at marker. If you see anything wrong with that pay the ball other than Granville, then maybe you need to think about why you're the only person who sees something else wrong with it.
elvis
Guest
Granville was wrestling with Burgess, Burgess moves sideways as he plays the ball putting Granville not square on. Perhaps watch it without your Souths glasses on. If anyone should be penalised it should be either the other marker for not being behind Granville, or Burgess for walking off the mark. Watch it again.
Mycall
Guest
I think your comment is laughable after watching that PTB again. Burgess could not have got up more straight and played the ball more correct (you could say its unusual for him, but in this case is the truth). Granville was just standing next to Burgess the whole time before taking off! Looking at closely and you realise how stupid Granville was to try it. He could have easily put legal pressure on reynolds and won the game for the cows. Hess was tackled 11m, the ref set the 10m then. In gettting up off the ground and playing the ball, he has, like almost every player does except when tackled on the tryline, walked forward a metre. If the ref was to mark the 10m from where the player plays the ball, he would have to wait until the player is standing and then move backwards as the player walks forward to play the ball. I hope you understand the lunacy of that assertion.
RoryStorm
Guest
And he said all of them. At the same time. Bet there's not a dry eye in the stands.
ken gargett
Guest
you're most welcome. i'm sure i must have stolen it from somewhere also.
Matt P
Roar Rookie
"not even the brothers grimm have managed such a fairy tale" Mate, I will be stealing that line for future use, love it!
ken gargett
Guest
"bronco biased fans". just so i am clear, because this really feels like responding the dumbest post of the day, you are attacking fans for being biased in favour of their own club? isn't that pretty much the definition of a fan? i'd be truly stunned if any club had fans that did not think they were regularly dudded. as PNGBF88 says, souths were awarded tries from forward passes in the game v the broncos. one perhaps the most blatant i can remember - tom brady would be proud to throw something that far forward - but where is your outrage at that? or your acceptance that this happens. as for 'sims sidestepped' and therefore is at fault nonsense, not even the brothers grimm have managed such a fairy tale. napa is responsible for his actions. it is a shame that the NRL are so lacking in responsibility that they failed to respond appropriately. 99.99% of the calls. surely you've been told a billion times not to exaggerate.
Matt P
Roar Rookie
https://journals.lww.com/acsm-csmr/Fulltext/2013/01000/Chronic_Traumatic_Encephalopathy.10.aspx https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_traumatic_encephalopathy https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/chronic-traumatic-encephalopathy/symptoms-causes/syc-20370921
elvis
Guest
Yes I do have to ask that. No need to be snippy. And you haven't answered any part of the question. If people have been beaten around the head for ages, are ex footballers now any different from exfootballers in the past? Who is this 1% of the population who thought footy payers weren't taking damage from being beaten in the head?
elvis
Guest
What do you think of Burgess taking a step sideways to play the ball? If Hess walked off the mark and that made the Souths players onside, sure that made Granville onside as well? Isn't consistency what we are after?
mushi
Roar Guru
Here is another factoid about Mr Langlands – he’s a rugby league immortal. Terrible legacy that one, aboslutlely terrible. If your smoking gun for destruction of a legacy is Changa then your argument needs a comeptle rethink. I also don’t think you can with any certainty say how today’s athletes will be remembered based on the current “cruel” environment. As such attempting to “protect” a legacy is just such a flawed decision making process that any advice to do so is in my mind harmful. A legacy is an outcome of how your actions are remembered by those oyu don’t directly know. Worrying about that is taking an express elevator to unhappiness.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
Thanks Mycall I only have my addled brain to go by and remember two Rabbits rushing towards Morgan and I assumed, wrongly it seems, they jumped the gun.
Mycall
Guest
I decided to go back and check. Hess was tackled 11m out, but walked off the mark to play it on the 10m line. In this instance, the refs generally let play go on, and don't adjust the defensive line further back to accommodate the players walking off the mark. Sutton had his foot on the try line, Tatola was about half a metre in front of the tryline, the ref was looking in that direction and obviously ruled that he was back 10m otherwise he would have warned him like he did later to Granville. Another difference important or not, was that Tatola didn't rush out of the line. Souths were obviously too tired to get off the line early. Morgan was second receiver after all and in that situation should have had defenders putting more pressure on him. In the end, it can't be compared to Granville, who was offside and warned multiple times that he was offside. Nor can it be compared to the Broncos win over the Tigers which on replays you can see that the Tigers player was square at marker and didn't go early.
Forty Twenty
Guest
Exactly Tim , Proctor 'made' Rapana snap but he didn't snap. Players are 'made to snap' every game by all sorts of incidents . Guess what, Scott is the black sheep because he was stupid enough to actually snap. I don't care if they ban sledging but until then the onus is on the player being sledged to not snap. It's not ok to retrospectively convict Walker of a crime which isn't a crime just because you don't like him.
664 the neighbour of the beast
Guest
So Tim you think its just fine to snap and punch some one because they were being provoked? is that what you seriously said? also, this happened on a football field where Scott can just laugh and walk it off.... not in real life where your being cornered by a drunken thug or just bullies in general where you have to protect yourself- that i understand as a last resort. But on a football field because someone is telling you nasty names....please! I dont mean to picking your arguments apart...but seriously what disgusting logic! i hope your not serious and just being the Roar's whipping boy to keep hits going. Its not tough to punch even when being provoked Tim....get it in your head, it's never tough or doesn't make you a man to punch someone not once, not twice but 3 times on a football field. Think about your actions! What if Walker lost his eye because of what he said on a football field...who bloody cares what the tool said....be a man and walk away! Also, don't think for a second kids watching this will now think it's ok to go around punching someone because you were provoked and its the only way to deal with it! Rugby League is still supported buy thugs for thugs obviously...time to grow up Tim and understand it takes a bigger man to walk away. Or all that work that has been done in the community about education young people to walk away instead of reacting to "violence" is good for nothing...maybe ask the families on both sides that have lost love ones from a singe punch if it's ok to hit someone when provoked.
664 the neighbour of the beast
Guest
"There does need to be punishment for inciting riot. There is in the real world" There in lies the problem....punch a guy in the head like Scott does in the real world and he is a chance of getting locked up with a "coward" punch ...in rugby League he gets a 2 week holiday.No real world in Rugby League or any sport for that matter.
664 the neighbour of the beast
Guest
What's with the Warren Smith love affair? Do you get money for mentioning his name or did he once shake your hand Tim? If your going to drop names maybe someone with a bit more recognition in the game than Warren Smith might make us think your pretty cool and you mingle with the best..
Forty Twenty
Guest
It's interesting how many posters who rate themselves as fair minded are condoning Scotts assault on Walker. By that logic it ok to punch a player at any time if his sledging annoys you that much. What rubbish. Players get sledged all the time and none of them punch the sledger in the head. Tim , your logic that Walker had a second go at Scott and that makes it ok is nonsense. Players have second and third goes all the times in these fake brawls but none of them throw punches. Apart from that it was Scott who grabbed Walker the second time anyway. Napa deserved a punch in the head and a broken jaw if the rule of the jungle is to apply but it doesn't.