Round 12 Write Up

How was there enough evidence to overturn the on field decision on the Austin try? General Patton looking after his old troops.

Maybe the Knights should look at signing Fensom.

ryno_ wrote:How was there enough evidence to overturn the on field decision on the Austin try? General Patton looking after his old troops.

For mine he's losing it, call on the field should have stayed but I didn't think it was a try if they're making their own decision.

Paulo already in Canberra, celebrating in the sheds this arvo.

Canberra deserved the win, once they got that wave of momentum, we couldn't stop


i think the eastwood forward pass was the turning point (that and the standard let the other team score before half time no matter the circumstances) , if he looks inside, we go 14 up but he throws an impossible pass that was always gonna go forward

still reasonably happy with the effort, i went in with no hope and took the game to them, they just had to much footy for us in the end

losing kasiano was a killer on top of the origin stuff was a killer, the 3 experienced guys (tolman, graham, eastwood) were amazing, consistently better then their opposition but they all looked gone at the end and as they game opened up, we just got destroyed by their backs




i don't think jmoz playing changes the result or anything but the situation that played out yesterday with him and NSWRL was un-acceptable for a professional sport. i don't know if anyone is to blame but how people think that this type of stuff plus the broncs and cows missing half a dozen players in a multi-million dollar sport is ok, is beyond me.

The NRL can't keep being treated like a reserve grade comp during origin time, its absolutely ridiculous.

i honestly think Jmoz should have played yesterday, the club should have been put first and then if NSW still wanted him, he could back up

leaguegod wrote:Canberra deserved the win, once they got that wave of momentum, we couldn't stop


i think the eastwood forward pass was the turning point (that and the standard let the other team score before half time no matter the circumstances) , if he looks inside, we go 14 up but he throws an impossible pass that was always gonna go forward

still reasonably happy with the effort, i went in with no hope and took the game to them, they just had to much footy for us in the end

losing kasiano was a killer on top of the origin stuff was a killer, the 3 experienced guys (tolman, graham, eastwood) were amazing, consistently better then their opposition but they all looked gone at the end and as they game opened up, we just got destroyed by their backs




i don't think jmoz playing changes the result or anything but the situation that played out yesterday with him and NSWRL was un-acceptable for a professional sport. i don't know if anyone is to blame but how people think that this type of stuff plus the broncs and cows missing half a dozen players in a multi-million dollar sport is ok, is beyond me.

The NRL can't keep being treated like a reserve grade comp during origin time, its absolutely ridiculous.

i honestly think Jmoz should have played yesterday, the club should have been put first and then if NSW still wanted him, he could back up

I understand what you mean but that would just open a loophole that could (and would) then be exploited.

The simple answer is that the NRL needs to grow a set of knackers, realise the product they have at their disposal and start dictating terms to the TV rights holders.

The NRL seems to think they are doing the right thing by extracting as much $$ as they can regardless of the scheduling but they are lacking foresight, otherwise they would clearly see that this scheduling is damaging the product and will therefore affect future TV rights deals.

In fact, I'd argue that if they sorted their shit out in terms of scheduling, the product would be even better and they would probably be able to extract the same if not more $$ out of the TV rights deals.

Without having exclusivity anymore I think Nine's rating would be down the toilet, they aren't going to have the cash to call the shots in the next deal.

Oz Sport Mad wrote:

I understand what you mean but that would just open a loophole that could (and would) then be exploited.

The simple answer is that the NRL needs to grow a set of knackers, realise the product they have at their disposal and start dictating terms to the TV rights holders.

The NRL seems to think they are doing the right thing by extracting as much $$ as they can regardless of the scheduling but they are lacking foresight, otherwise they would clearly see that this scheduling is damaging the product and will therefore affect future TV rights deals.

In fact, I'd argue that if they sorted their shit out in terms of scheduling, the product would be even better and they would probably be able to extract the same if not more $$ out of the TV rights deals.

would states really want to exploit it ? i know there have be situations in the past but i'd say they would rather not have a player play a club games days before an origin game. i just don't think NSW should be able to throw a team into disarray on game day, i think it was grossly unfair of them to bring jmoz in on the bulldogs game day. they have a Centre on the bench for crying out loud, they should have let morris play and then figured out what to do with the position later.


i completely agree tho, the only reason we have this debate year after year is because the NRL just let 9 dictate everything, NRL comp gets treated like a feeder comp for 2 months and the NRL just always calls the situation "not ideal" "everything will be looked at"

apparently next year, we'll have 1 origin on a stand alone weekend, doing that, the NRL clearly knows what is best the competition but doesn't have enough balls to move all 3 because of the coin

Honeysett wrote:

For mine he's losing it, call on the field should have stayed but I didn't think it was a try if they're making their own decision.

I dont reckon it was a try either.
Short and he lost the ball.

I didnt think it was a holwer.

i thought it was no try but i don't think it was conclusive enough to over turn the original call of try

leaguegod wrote:i thought it was no try but i don't think it was conclusive enough to over turn the original call of try

happens every game almost.
its literally the reason refs shouldnt give try or no try before it goes upstairs.

Pieman wrote:

happens every game almost.
its literally the reason refs shouldnt give try or no try before it goes upstairs.

I actually like them giving an opinion, it's them being forced to that is the issue.

Krump wrote:
I actually like them giving an opinion, it's them being forced to that is the issue.

why cant they just say - I think its a try but not sure - instead of ITS A TRY can you find a reason for it to not be one

Pieman wrote:

why cant they just say - I think its a try but not sure - instead of ITS A TRY can you find a reason for it to not be one

I'm not disaggreeing, just saying that I enjoy seeing them giving an opinion. I love it when they actually have the stones to make a decision themselves.

Krump wrote:
I'm not disaggreeing, just saying that I enjoy seeing them giving an opinion. I love it when they actually have the stones to make a decision themselves.

yeah fair enough mate, personally I would love to see them just give a try or not rather than go upstairs.
It wouldnt bother me at all if there was no video ref.

IMO - the video ref/bunker gets as many wrong as the refs would if they were just awarding or denying tries from their own point of views.

General shouldnt be doing Bulldogs games, 2 weeks in a row he has helped them out with dodgy calls.

ryno_ wrote:How was there enough evidence to overturn the on field decision on the Austin try? General Patton looking after his old troops.

I'm just watching the replay now. Surely that was a no try?

I like the introduction of the third option - Try / No Try / Unsure, and have the ability to send it to the bunker if you're not 100% anyway

How does that damage the game? Ref's are going to send it "up" anyway, so why not take away the coinflip of an unsighted/unsure ref?

I honestly don't see the downside.

I like the unsure option because every word is broadcast, so if refs over use the unsure option they will get called out.

Everyone is going on about Patton, what about that cheating cunt Badger who hates the Tiger's. This was sent up "no try"

Maybe he's been watching the Tigers for the last two months and assumed the player would do something to fuck up a certain try. A quick review from the video ref confirmed it was in fact the guy who has only been with the club a couple of weeks, so has not yet perfected the art of fucking it up (as it usually takes a few weeks of training with them to pick that up), and therefore awarded the try.