If the refs weren't trying to keep the raiders in the game.........

[supermario]

Then i have no idea why the refs made some of the calls they did !!!!!

Jesus !! the refs were HOPELESS !!!!!

the first major poor call were the supposed tackle in mid air of the raiders player in the first half when graham got the ball after the ball came loose and scored....... Why the hell didn't the refs go to the video ref????? the ball was put over the line, if they found the raiders player was tackled in mid air then so be it ! it should have been looked at !

the second major poor call was in the second half, pearce puts in a great long kick, the chase was brilliant, they pick up the player, in one motion and drive him back over the goal line.....should have been a drop out.......somehow the ref feels that the momentum of the raiders player stopped at some time.......BULLSHIT !!! it was a great pick up and drive back by the roosters chase and should have been a drop out by the raiders !

We won, yes, but the refs were doing all they can to keep the raiders in the match, can someone confirm if we lost the penalty count?

[redwhiteandbluester]

I think it was 8 penalties each which surprised me... at least we didn't lose the count for once!!

The lifting tackle call was plain wrong - the referee should call held once a) momentum stops or b) a Canberra player joins the 'maul'. Neither of those things happened, therefore it should've been a goal line drop kick.

The tackle in the air call was contentious, definitely could have gone to the video. The Roosters' player was definitely going for the ball not the man. Worth a look and I think benefit of the doubt might even have seen a try awarded.

[Guest]

Then i have no idea why the refs made some of the calls they did !!!!!

Jesus !! the refs were HOPELESS !!!!!

the first major poor call were the supposed tackle in mid air of the raiders player in the first half when graham got the ball after the ball came loose and scored....... Why the hell didn't the refs go to the video ref????? the ball was put over the line, if they found the raiders player was tackled in mid air then so be it ! it should have been looked at !

the second major poor call was in the second half, pearce puts in a great long kick, the chase was brilliant, they pick up the player, in one motion and drive him back over the goal line.....should have been a drop out.......somehow the ref feels that the momentum of the raiders player stopped at some time.......BULLSHIT !!! it was a great pick up and drive back by the roosters chase and should have been a drop out by the raiders !

We won, yes, but the refs were doing all they can to keep the raiders in the match, can someone confirm if we lost the penalty count?

Agree about the first example.

The second example is a problem with the rules rather than the officiating. These days the tackle is completed as soon as the ball carrier has a leg off the ground. So you can still drive, but you can't "pick up and drive" which is what happened. Ref got it right, but it is one of many, many examples of ridiculously rules/interpretations that have been introduced over the last two or three years. You can blame Harrigan and Finch for that one.

[Guest]

the second point, as bad as it is was right to the rule book

i personally didnt think the reffing was that bad, other than that one try

[Guest]

The RFL has announced that two new interpretations of the Rules of the Game will take effect in the 2010 season.

The changes - which they say are intended to increase the safety of players - will be implemented from this weekend onwards.

The first change effects the point at which a referee will call ‘held' in a tackle when the ball carrier's leg is lifted by the defending team. In previous seasons , the RFL say referees have only called held when both legs of the ball carrier were lifted off the ground: from this weekend the referee will call held if just one leg is lifted.

The League have also explained that the second change in interpretation is intended to outlaw the practise of dragging tackled players into touch or back towards their own in-goal area. Under the new interpretation, as soon as the referee sees a tackler dragging the ball carrier in a tackle that involves more than one defender he will call ‘held.'

"We want to encourage players to complete the tackle as quickly as possible and this new interpretation will end the practice of players being dragged into touch where there is more than one man making the tackle," said the RFL's Director of Match Officials, Stuart Cummings.

The full details of the 2010 interpretation changes are as follows:

Held called as soon as the ball carriers leg is lifted

Interpretation: Where opponents tackle the ball carrier in an upright position the referee should immediately call held if they lift a leg of the ball carrier off the ground.

Application: This occurs in an upright tackle and the leg of the ball carrier is lifted off the ground. Immediately this happens the referee will call held and players tackling cannot continue wrestling the player or driving him backwards. If they continue to work after the referee has called held then they should be penalised.

Dragging tackled players as opposed to pushing them

Interpretation:Where opponents do not make a tackle effective in the quickest possible manner but then attempt to drag an opponent into touch or back towards his own in goal area then the referee should immediately call held.

Application: This does not prevent players driving an opponent into touch or back into his own in goal area providing that a team mate of the ball carrier has not added their weight to the tackle. As soon as the referee sees a tackling player dragging the ball carrier in a tackle that involves more than one tackler he will call "held". If the tackling players continue to move the ball carrier after the "held" call they should be penalised.

http://www.rugbyleague.com/rugby-lea...-for-2010.html

[redwhiteandbluester]

http://www.rugbyleague.com/rugby-lea...-for-2010.html

This is irrelevant to the NRL, but I think that Finch has issued a near identical interpretation.

The problem is with Finch's long list of interpretations, removing any capacity for the referees to use any common sense.

The fact is with the lifting tackle, the referee must call held. The rule book gives a series of instances where 'held' should be called but the reality is, a penalty should only have been blown against the Roosters if 'held' had been called. The referee had not called 'held', they were entitled to keep driving. Regardless of whether or not the referee should have called 'held' (and yes he probably should have), he didn't, therefore the Roosters could keep going and certainly should not have been penalised.

[Guest]

This is irrelevant to the NRL, but I think that Finch has issued a near identical interpretation.

The problem is with Finch's long list of interpretations, removing any capacity for the referees to use any common sense.

The fact is with the lifting tackle, the referee must call held. The rule book gives a series of instances where 'held' should be called but the reality is, a penalty should only have been blown against the Roosters if 'held' had been called. The referee had not called 'held', they were entitled to keep driving. Regardless of whether or not the referee should have called 'held' (and yes he probably should have), he didn't, therefore the Roosters could keep going and certainly should not have been penalised.

Yeah, it was copied from the new NRL interpretation.

[Guest]

The refs probably had to make a fist of the game.

The Roosters looked like certainties after 25 minutes.

Not rocket science Mario.

[Cockadoodledoo]

How 3 officials standing no more than 15 metres from a blatant high shot from Shillington could miss it is beyond me.. I saw it from Bay 13 as clear as day.. They were absolutely disgraceful tonight.

[pcliaros]

according to NRL.com we lost the penalty count 9-8

[Kingbilly]

IT was obvious to me MR Steggles got to the Ref

[Juggler]

Soon as I saw Canberra player lose the ball I thought we'd get penalised. I know a lot of you won't like me saying this but I thought the Roosters player went for the ball but realised he wouldn't get there & tried to stuff up the defender at the end. Again its the rules.

Anyway - far bigger blights are...
1. the interpretation where a ball carrier who is trying to score is being driven back by the defence. The attacking team try to push the ball carrier back over the line. They are not allowed to impede the defence. how can they not!?

2. the current interpretation of the advantage rule. They have to advance the ball 10m from the mistake. It only applies to the NRL - get this - because of the 2 referees????!!!!! WTF? There is no connection!

Sorry that's my rant. And yeah, Canberra were offside all the time when Checcin marked the 10. With Lyons they weren't.

Having said that, wearing Sports Ears & listening to the refs is interesting & amusing at times. Did it for the first time last night.

[Guest]

according to NRL.com we lost the penalty count 9-8

well there's a ****en surprise

[Guest]

How 3 officials standing no more than 15 metres from a blatant high shot from Shillington could miss it is beyond me.. I saw it from Bay 13 as clear as day.. They were absolutely disgraceful tonight.

Shillington should have been sent off for the hit on JWH. Hopefully the judiciary rubs him out for some time.

[Guest]

Shillington should have been sent off for the hit on JWH. Hopefully the judiciary rubs him out for some time.

If you think he should have got sent for that, then put your skirt on now! Fair dinkum, its rugby league not ballet!