Money back when ref cocks up severely?

[ism22]

Bit of background... I put $200 on the Manly game (don't worry it's not THAT much money for me, but enough to talk about.)

ANYWAY... my risk and I obviously lost (heckle me all you like.)

Gets me thinking though... now we KNOW that the game was tainted by a crucial WRONG decision, why can't I get my money back?

Furthermore... What if I'd put $$$ on Mortimer to score a double? In hindsight he DID!!! Moot because I'm guessing nobody did, but since the NRL promotes betting so much, IMO they should protect betters from losing money when their bets were actually spot on.

You can't predict what coulda/shoulda happened if the call was correct, but since Harrigan goes out of his way to give the final "360 degree hindsight" decision, IMO such decisions should allow refunds.

---

Or am I stupid? It's the Roosters... I should just assume that when betting on them I'll be farked over by the refs every week. Sorry...

[IRoosterManI]

Bit of background... I put $200 on the Manly game (don't worry it's not THAT much money for me, but enough to talk about.)

ANYWAY... my risk and I obviously lost (heckle me all you like.)

Gets me thinking though... now we KNOW that the game was tainted by a crucial WRONG decision, why can't I get my money back?

Furthermore... What if I'd put $$$ on Mortimer to score a double? In hindsight he DID!!! Moot because I'm guessing nobody did, but since the NRL promotes betting so much, IMO they should protect betters from losing money when their bets were actually spot on.

You can't predict what coulda/shoulda happened if the call was correct, but since Harrigan goes out of his way to give the final "360 degree hindsight" decision, IMO such decisions should allow refunds.

---

Or am I stupid? It's the Roosters... I should just assume that when betting on them I'll be farked over by the refs every week. Sorry...

I LOVE THE IDEA!!!!!!

prob because i lost money too

[Guest]

Bit of background... I put $200 on the Manly game (don't worry it's not THAT much money for me, but enough to talk about.)

Or am I stupid?

Sorry mate, but that first part just makes you seem like a real w@nker. So sucked in for being sucked in.

[ism22]

Sorry mate, but that first part just makes you seem like a real w@nker. So sucked in for being sucked in.

Wanker?
My point is it was a responsible bet, so I'm not expecting sympathy with regard to the lost money (troll me all you like on that one.) It's the principal/process I'm complaining about, not the money I lost. When I put that money on the table, I knew I was taking a significant risk, and was prepared to lose.

My family will not go without anything as a result of this bet, and it wasn't a stupid punt even in hindsight because we got so close, however the refs took the game out of the Rooster's hands.

Would I do it again? Yes. If it's:
- Origin week, we only have 1 guy out (whereas the other team has 6)
- We've been in form and have looked like winning for some weeks, but keep getting robbed (so are thirsty)
- The bookies are paying close to 3x my $$$ if I win

I think the risk was worth it and I'd do it again under those circumstances. Just irritating that the result came down to the refs rather than the players. I bet on the Roosters, not Bill Harrigan!!!

[Guest]

Good luck mate.

The bookies aren't trying to make friends.

[Guest]

I told you at the time it was a stupid bet but you didn't listen. Serves you right.

[stsae]

I know what you're saying and I'm not a betting man so I will give my perspective.

Footy isn't/shouldn't be determined by gambling results.

These things, glaring reffs errors, have been part of the game for over 100yrs now.

The variables, 34 players, 5 officials, weather, injuries etc there's so much that can have an effect on the outcome, refs mistakes are just one variable.

The record books still say woManly won, no matter what Harrigant says after the event.

No refunding of money to someone who CHOSES to lay a bet, KNOWING full well what they are getting into, KNOWING full well the RISKS and VARIABLES involved.

I have nothing against gambling, I just see no point in even asking for a refund in this instance.

[elo]

It's at the prerogative of the betting agency/bookie - I'm pretty sure a major agency refunded Ireland's loss to France in the last soccer World Cup qualification after the hand of frog disgrace, it will never ever be law for obvious reasons already mentioned above.

If you think back just a few years if you made a bet on a thoroughbreds race well in advance and your horse was scratched you would have done your money, now most will refund that bet as one agency brought the rule in so the rest followed to not lose customers.

[Pass the Ball]

And should anyone who backed Manly to win, just give their money back to the bookies?

[Guest]

Your team losing hurts more than any money you lose.

[Andrew Walker]

If I am to gamble on Roposters to win the match I also factyor in the bias agaisnt us when looking at the odds and whther they are value At half time I saw we were 2.50 Personally I thought we should have been $3.00 or more

[Hawkeye]

So what determines whether a call is officially a "bad call" ?
Yes sometimes its obvious, but most of the time its debateable. If there was a money back option for all the ref's bad call, guess you'd find Harrigan refusing to come out and say his ref's made a bad call ......betting agencies would ensure that.

[Pass the Ball]

So what determines whether a call is officially a "bad call" ?
Yes sometimes its obvious, but most of the time its debateable. If there was a money back option for all the ref's bad call, guess you'd find Harrigan refusing to come out and say his ref's made a bad call ......betting agencies would ensure that.

That's what I mean. Are all the winners just going to give up their winning to give back to the losers?

[Guest]

You didn't gamble on whether the refs would make a dud call, you gambled on the outcome and you lost. That's why it's called gambling.

Chook.

[Guest]

You didn't gamble on whether the refs would make a dud call, you gambled on the outcome and you lost. That's why it's called gambling.

Chook.

Spot on Chook that's why i gave up the punt ages ago and any wise Rooster fan will know we don't win @ Brooky even when we had Freddy from memory we only won once i think in 2004. I remember one year they had Adam Brown and Adam Hayden in the halves and they still won with Peter Sharp as coach.