Doggies paying $9 - is it a fix?

[ism22]

Why are they paying such ridiculous $$$ for the Doggies to win? I'm expecting a win, but not a complete walkover.

Is this a Brisbane-style fix where they've planned for us to lose? Critically analyse in 6000 words or less...

[Moose]

It's because the dogs get flogged almost every week

[King Salvo]

Dogs would be expected to put in a big effort after last weeks match and the Belmore 5 being suspended for Covid breaches .

Also the Chooks aren't at what you would call as full strength with the players they do have available with Tedesco and Crichton out and possible more changes to be made.

I assume it will be a wet track and raining so a leveler and a close game would be expected.

It is hoped that the Chooks see it that way too and they don't turn up expecting to win as they have something to prove also after their own very poor effort last week as well especially when they were supposedly honoring Chook Legend and team of the Century member Barry " Bunny " Reilly

[player 1]

Issy, firstly I liked your post that you must have deleted the other day along the lines that JWH and the club shouldn't accept the NRL's bogus MRC and Judiciary and just continue to field players suspended by them. Love it.

Regarding this post, yes the broncos were paying $13 or so, but I honestly don't believe a betting fix was behind both the match officials', and at times ours, appalling performance. They're just not very bright that's all. Plus yes, Radley plays for the roosters, and the almost universal hatred and jealousy of our club could have played a part in the ref and bunker's and MRC/judiciary's picking on him. But no betting fix, they just hate us and don't mind showing it, particularly after Robbo and the club publicly humiliated them by pointing out their incompetence. We are still seeing the fallout from this.

Regarding the dogs game, from my experience at the trots at Harold Park back in the days (which coincidentally were recently the province of fcuktard VLandys), there were frequently fixed races but the pre-organised "winner" of the race always had their odds drastically shorten close to race time. So I will need to see both that happen, and us have 4 or 5 players sent to the bin and a 20-nil penalty/six again count before I believe betting is involved should we somehow lose.

How's that?

[Mickie Lane]

Issy, firstly I liked your post that you must have deleted the other day along the lines that JWH and the club shouldn't accept the NRL's bogus MRC and Judiciary and just continue to field players suspended by them. Love it.

Regarding this post, yes the broncos were paying $13 or so, but I honestly don't believe a betting fix was behind both the match officials', and at times ours, appalling performance. They're just not very bright that's all. Plus yes, Radley plays for the roosters, and the almost universal hatred and jealousy of our club could have played a part in the ref and bunker's and MRC/judiciary's picking on him. But no betting fix, they just hate us and don't mind showing it, particularly after Robbo and the club publicly humiliated them by pointing out their incompetence. We are still seeing the fallout from this.

Regarding the dogs game, from my experience at the trots at Harold Park back in the days (which coincidentally were recently the province of fcuktard VLandys), there were frequently fixed races but the pre-organised "winner" of the race always had their odds drastically shorten close to race time. So I will need to see both that happen, and us have 4 or 5 players sent to the bin and a 20-nil penalty/six again count before I believe betting is involved should we somehow lose.

How's that?

I like it.

[Batemans Bay Rooster]

Why are they paying such ridiculous $$$ for the Doggies to win? I'm expecting a win, but not a complete walkover.

Is this a Brisbane-style fix where they've planned for us to lose? Critically analyse in 6000 words or less...

If you actually believe that nonsense, you should stop watching games.

[zac]

If you actually believe that nonsense, you should stop watching games.

or put your money with your mouth is

[bondi paul]

In consecutive weeks we have Klown as the review official. He was the ref against the riff. I see a pattern here re judiciary sightings.

[ism22]

Issy, firstly I liked your post that you must have deleted the other day along the lines that JWH and the club shouldn't accept the NRL's bogus MRC and Judiciary and just continue to field players suspended by them. Love it.

Regarding this post, yes the broncos were paying $13 or so, but I honestly don't believe a betting fix was behind both the match officials', and at times ours, appalling performance. They're just not very bright that's all. Plus yes, Radley plays for the roosters, and the almost universal hatred and jealousy of our club could have played a part in the ref and bunker's and MRC/judiciary's picking on him. But no betting fix, they just hate us and don't mind showing it, particularly after Robbo and the club publicly humiliated them by pointing out their incompetence. We are still seeing the fallout from this.

Regarding the dogs game, from my experience at the trots at Harold Park back in the days (which coincidentally were recently the province of fcuktard VLandys), there were frequently fixed races but the pre-organised "winner" of the race always had their odds drastically shorten close to race time. So I will need to see both that happen, and us have 4 or 5 players sent to the bin and a 20-nil penalty/six again count before I believe betting is involved should we somehow lose.

How's that?

Hahaha glad somebody saw that post before I tore it down. I decided I hadn't articulated it well enough but do hold the opinion that the current administration risks players just saying 'get farked... not paying the fine... [or] gonna play anyway coz I dispute your version of events'. May not seem real but the NRL isn't a statutory body with decision making powers or the power to issue 'fines'. IMO a serious problem with the current crackdown is that it corrodes faith in these contractual arrangements that make-up the 'tribunal'. What would they do if players collectively agreed not to pay any 'penalties' on the basis that the crackdown's excessive? Just a random thought buzzing around in my head.

Agreed this one's not a fix BTW. Just thought I'd throw a conspiracy theory out there as I'm extremely tired and thought it'd be a good prank. Meh, time for me to sleep (FWIW the tiredness is all self-inflicted as I've been staying up to 2am every night repairing two old Sega consoles... both are now fully repaired and modded so I look forward to using them at some point)

[The Skeez]

Hahaha glad somebody saw that post before I tore it down. I decided I hadn't articulated it well enough but do hold the opinion that the current administration risks players just saying 'get farked... not paying the fine... [or] gonna play anyway coz I dispute your version of events'. May not seem real but the NRL isn't a statutory body with decision making powers or the power to issue 'fines'.

When the NRL is the competition and they set the rules of the game; while also covering the salary expenses of the players via a grant, wouldn’t they have some authority?

[bondi.boy]

Why are they paying such ridiculous $$$ for the Doggies to win? I'm expecting a win, but not a complete walkover.

Is this a Brisbane-style fix where they've planned for us to lose? Critically analyse in 6000 words or less...

Assuming that everyone in the NRL is honest and true, as there is no evidence to the contrary, any seemingly biased refereeing decisions on the field must be for other reasons.
Other reasons like:
for us
-A bad reputation for breaking the rules, rightly or wrongly earnt by Roosters teams of the past.
*
-The emergence of "teachers pet" teams who seem to be looked at by referees thru rose coloured glasses, that the pets are angels who can do no wrong and because of their 'beauty' deserve to win every game.
Etc.

[Spirit of 66]

Assuming that everyone in the NRL is honest and true, as there is no evidence to the contrary, any seemingly biased refereeing decisions on the field must be for other reasons.
Other reasons like:
for us
-A bad reputation for breaking the rules, rightly or wrongly earnt by Roosters teams of the past.
*
-The emergence of "teachers pet" teams who seem to be looked at by referees thru rose coloured glasses, that the pets are angels who can do no wrong and because of their 'beauty' deserve to win every game.
Etc.

Once Jason Ryles from the Storm gets here, I'm sure we'll be given free rein to slow down the play the ball and flop into the ruck without punishment like they do. Or knock opposition kickers out with late high tackles. Or kick players on the ground. It's all about the coaching.

[dice]

Because Benny Elias tipped them to win. T-R-I....TRY!!! I am presuming Walker has passed is fitness tests.

I believe Bulldogs are way overs. They have a decent forward pack. Our boys had better take this game seriously and not try to play touch footy as they have on occasion.

[Johnny73]

I go into every game thinking the Roosters will be screwed over somehow. It saves any feelings of disappointment.

[Batemans Bay Rooster]

Bulldogs $12 on betfair, which when you minus the 10% commission on winnings works out to be a price of $10.80. And we're $1.08, which after commission works out to $1.062. That's ridiculous considering our form the last 3 weeks, as well as no Crichton and no Tedesco. Every chance we'll still win by 20 or 30, but how on earth could you take $1.06.