Penalties...

[redwhiteandbluester]

Here is something to consider.

If you add up the average penalties conceded by all the Roosters' opponents this year, the Roosters should have been awarded 108 penalties.

So if Souths concede 5.25 penalties per game on average, Wests concede 5.45, Canterbury concede 4.95, etc. it all adds up to 108 for the Roosters' first 20 games. The Roosters were entitled to receive 108 penalties, when you add up the average number of penalties conceded by their first 20 opponents.

However, over the first 20 games, the Roosters have only received 89 penalties, a massive 19 less than the 108 they were entitled to.

This means that either other teams are especially disciplined against the Roosters (and it is fantasy to think that every single week our opponents make this special effort, and fail to do so against any other side), or the referees simply don't give the Roosters a fair go. I suspect it's the latter.

Maybe it is because the Roosters themselves are ill-disciplined (they give away 6.25 penalties per game, second only to Manly) and the referees therefore see the Roosters in a poor light. Another reason might be a lack of home ground advantage (small crowds that are often dominated by away fans, usually an empty stadium, three home games played away from home ground, etc.).

Neither of these explanations should influence how many penalties the Roosters are awarded. Unfortunately, they seem to.

These statistics prove that the referees are not giving the Roosters a fair go.

[The Pelican]

Tbh i don't really care anymore, because no matter what we do nothing will stop the unfair treatment we get until the independent commission comes in and Finch and Harrigan get sacked. I really can't be bothered worrying about it anymore.

[Guest]

To be honest, 19 less over 20 rounds is only us getting about one less penalty than we should, each round. Not the worst statistic.

I think the real problem is the stuff we get penalised for. I watched the Melbourne vs. Souffs game today (fantastic to see the scum get beaten), and saw both sides slowing down the ruck consistently. If we did half of what they were doing we'd be caned in the penalty count.

I'd be interested to know when the last time we won two consecutive penalty counts in a row was.

[Rooster_6]

Tbh i don't really care anymore, because no matter what we do nothing will stop the unfair treatment we get until the independent commission comes in and Finch and Harrigan get sacked. I really can't be bothered worrying about it anymore.

Spot on just fire up and use it as motivation.

[redwhiteandbluester]

I'd be interested to know when the last time we won two consecutive penalty counts in a row was.

I'm not sure about that statistic, but the last time the Roosters were awarded more penalties than they conceded over the course of a season was 2004.

[Chooks4Life]

If teams would get penalised for the same fuking shit we do id be happy but no we get penlised and there angels

[fletch]

I'm not sure about that statistic, but the last time the Roosters were awarded more penalties than they conceded over the course of a season was 2004.

so basically we have been thrashed in the penalty counts ever since we got rid of Finch Jnr, no surprise there.

[Headless Chook]

so basically we have been thrashed in the penalty counts ever since we got rid of Finch Jnr, no surprise there.

No, we still had him for 2 seasons after 2004.

[Rooster_6]

I'm not sure about that statistic, but the last time the Roosters were awarded more penalties than they conceded over the course of a season was 2004.

'Coincidentally' the Bulldogs and us are the two teams to receive the least penalties...

Certainly fits in with what Gould said on the Roast 2 years back.

[The Pelican]

'Coincidentally' the Bulldogs and us are the two teams to receive the least penalties...

Certainly fits in with what Gould said on the Roast 2 years back.

What was that?

[Rooster_6]

What was that?

Got a tap on the shoulder by an official and got told our time was over...

[Guest]

Being on the wrong side of penalty count is a poor excuse for a loss.

It's basically used to cover up the array of drop ball and dismissal of opportunity the loosing team had. I do agree it presents the opposition with an immediate advantage, but that should be just taken in the stride. No questions asked. Get on with the game.

If we were a great side (Quote; 'Best Roosters Attack Ever') then the penalty counts should mean shit all really.

Stop whining.

Conversely, I find it puzzling to muster the array of inconsistencies related to our side in comparison to other teams. It just doesn't make sense. A conspiracy theorist's field day.

[supermario]

So weissbar, i take it you are happy that even when the Roosters win they are majorly on the wrong side of the penalty count?

Considering the Roosters have won more than they lost this season.....you just ponder that princess.

[redwhiteandbluester]

Weesey, nobody at any stage in this thread attributed a loss to penalty counts. But statistics over a long period of time prove unequivocally that the Roosters do not get a fair go from the referees.

In terms of penalties awarded, Roosters are second last this year, rock bottom last year, third last in 2008, below average in 2007, third last in 2006 and fourth last in 2005.

Penalty counts can be disputed because maybe the Roosters' discipline is poor, but we are simply not getting our fair share of penalties from the refs.

'Stop whining'? You'd do well to take some of your own advice.

[Guest]

Look its disappointing, but thats how it is.

I couldn't care less if we lost a penalty count if we won the game and visa versa. It's just another variable that exists in the game - but that's what makes it as great as it is.