Again with the 70 minutes thing, I already explained how that's irrelevant in an 80 minute game, even more so when scores are level with 10 to go.
I cannot stress this enough, what I and most people would have preferred is the referee getting the last tackle call right the first time so we wouldn't be in this mess. But yeah, on a fundamental rugby league level, sticking with the 6 again call really is the next best option, because that's how footy is sometimes. I've often defended referees and understand they don't get it right all the time, but they are supposed to call it as they see it and back themselves and everybody is supposed to move on. Thats not what happened the other night. Tedesco didn't touch it but he came awfully close, the ref called it how he saw it and that should have been the end of it. Ideally, the Raiders deserved the right call so they could play accordingly but since they didn't, they were more deserving of an incorrect set of six than what ultimately happened, because that's just how footy goes sometimes.
Ultimately, that's what it comes down to, that's why it's left a bad taste in the mouths of non Roosters fans, the Raiders were robbed of an opportunity (and again, it was just that, an opportunity) by something that was fundamentally un-rugby league. Bad calls happen, but that is rugby league and this goes way beyond a bad call. Did the Roosters make better use of their opportunities than the Raiders, yes, but considering the game came down to just one of those being the difference for the Roosters to win, the fact that referees took one of those opportunities off the Raiders when they shouldn't have is massive and should not be down played. You might be right about biases coming through, but I really hope you don't think it's coming through from just one side...
So the Raiders were robbed of a chance to win (after they had 70 minutes to try and do it) which upsets you. But you are okay with sticking with 6 again and the Roosters potentially losing on a wrong call?
Surely people can see their own bias's coming through..?
Can't agree with you on this one, Sterlo. Did they have plenty of football and field position in the first 70 minutes to win the game? Yes. Does a game go for 70 minutes? No, it goes for 80. You can't blame the Raiders for not wrapping it before the 70th minute if it still took the the Roosters until the 72nd to do it, after a controversial call like this. Also, there's a massive difference between the first 70 and last 10 if scores are level. Up until then they are only trying to score tries, but this was right when a team would start looking at a field goal. Even if the ref got the last tackle call right the first time, the Raiders still could have gone for a repeat set and try to set up for one. I'm not saying the Raiders were robbed of the win, but they were robbed of a massive opportunity to set up for one...
We’re going to go so far as to complain that the Roosters got the ball in the middle of the field instead of the chance that play broke down in the corner? That’s wayyy over the top.
Completly agree with Sterlo.
It is a tough loss for the Raiders, a tough way to lose. But they scored one try all night. They had 61% of possession in the second half and didn't score. And that has been the story of how they play. Sometimes you can win a game on just heart, but you can't expect to win 3 Finals games on just heart. At no stage in the Finals did they show any attacking structure, nor did they show a style that was breaking down defences. They were gutsy, no doubt, but if you can't score points, and they had chances, you can't win.
BJ failed to throw a flick pass, Mitchell nailed his. That is the difference.
Yea like Gus and John cheerleading the Roosters all year. Johns not caring about knock ons in previous match as the players should sort it out. Sterlo never having a Parra bias aye. They all have agendas based on the teams involved and their mates. They play down the controversy of the teams they cheerlead for and outrage if against their team. All the ex players aren't objective in the slightest. 9 commentary and associates are predictable in their thinking, its a boys club. Fitler interviewing Annersley haha come on!!
Yeah because that’s what ch9 have done all year, just play down controversy and lay off the refs....
Could no way be that Sterlo is objectively commenting on what he saw over the 80 mins without agenda like he usually does....lucky I got my alfoil
If Wighton doesn't submit to the tackle, at the very least a change of possession is not in the centre of the field- a much easier prospect coming away from your own end.
Sorry Peter but you are wrong suggesting the call had a limited influence on the game. I think he knows it too.
Brendon Waldron
Roar Pro
Again with the 70 minutes thing, I already explained how that's irrelevant in an 80 minute game, even more so when scores are level with 10 to go. I cannot stress this enough, what I and most people would have preferred is the referee getting the last tackle call right the first time so we wouldn't be in this mess. But yeah, on a fundamental rugby league level, sticking with the 6 again call really is the next best option, because that's how footy is sometimes. I've often defended referees and understand they don't get it right all the time, but they are supposed to call it as they see it and back themselves and everybody is supposed to move on. Thats not what happened the other night. Tedesco didn't touch it but he came awfully close, the ref called it how he saw it and that should have been the end of it. Ideally, the Raiders deserved the right call so they could play accordingly but since they didn't, they were more deserving of an incorrect set of six than what ultimately happened, because that's just how footy goes sometimes. Ultimately, that's what it comes down to, that's why it's left a bad taste in the mouths of non Roosters fans, the Raiders were robbed of an opportunity (and again, it was just that, an opportunity) by something that was fundamentally un-rugby league. Bad calls happen, but that is rugby league and this goes way beyond a bad call. Did the Roosters make better use of their opportunities than the Raiders, yes, but considering the game came down to just one of those being the difference for the Roosters to win, the fact that referees took one of those opportunities off the Raiders when they shouldn't have is massive and should not be down played. You might be right about biases coming through, but I really hope you don't think it's coming through from just one side...
Andrew
Guest
So the Raiders were robbed of a chance to win (after they had 70 minutes to try and do it) which upsets you. But you are okay with sticking with 6 again and the Roosters potentially losing on a wrong call? Surely people can see their own bias's coming through..?
Flexis
Roar Rookie
You give me far too much credit. I simply watched the highlights on YouTube and forged opinions from the comments section.
Doc79
Roar Rookie
Watch league often or just GF day? There are some tactics out there at times.
Brendon Waldron
Roar Pro
Can't agree with you on this one, Sterlo. Did they have plenty of football and field position in the first 70 minutes to win the game? Yes. Does a game go for 70 minutes? No, it goes for 80. You can't blame the Raiders for not wrapping it before the 70th minute if it still took the the Roosters until the 72nd to do it, after a controversial call like this. Also, there's a massive difference between the first 70 and last 10 if scores are level. Up until then they are only trying to score tries, but this was right when a team would start looking at a field goal. Even if the ref got the last tackle call right the first time, the Raiders still could have gone for a repeat set and try to set up for one. I'm not saying the Raiders were robbed of the win, but they were robbed of a massive opportunity to set up for one...
Flexis
Roar Rookie
We’re going to go so far as to complain that the Roosters got the ball in the middle of the field instead of the chance that play broke down in the corner? That’s wayyy over the top.
Andrew
Guest
Completly agree with Sterlo. It is a tough loss for the Raiders, a tough way to lose. But they scored one try all night. They had 61% of possession in the second half and didn't score. And that has been the story of how they play. Sometimes you can win a game on just heart, but you can't expect to win 3 Finals games on just heart. At no stage in the Finals did they show any attacking structure, nor did they show a style that was breaking down defences. They were gutsy, no doubt, but if you can't score points, and they had chances, you can't win. BJ failed to throw a flick pass, Mitchell nailed his. That is the difference.
Adzy
Roar Rookie
Yea like Gus and John cheerleading the Roosters all year. Johns not caring about knock ons in previous match as the players should sort it out. Sterlo never having a Parra bias aye. They all have agendas based on the teams involved and their mates. They play down the controversy of the teams they cheerlead for and outrage if against their team. All the ex players aren't objective in the slightest. 9 commentary and associates are predictable in their thinking, its a boys club. Fitler interviewing Annersley haha come on!!
Renegade
Roar Guru
Yeah because that’s what ch9 have done all year, just play down controversy and lay off the refs.... Could no way be that Sterlo is objectively commenting on what he saw over the 80 mins without agenda like he usually does....lucky I got my alfoil
Doc79
Roar Rookie
If Wighton doesn't submit to the tackle, at the very least a change of possession is not in the centre of the field- a much easier prospect coming away from your own end. Sorry Peter but you are wrong suggesting the call had a limited influence on the game. I think he knows it too.
Tom G
Roar Rookie
Damn right
Adzy
Roar Rookie
Channel 9 on high alert to play down any controversy.