that is all that GF was.
fucken refereeing was disgraceful
Wighton should be Churchill Medalist
You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!
This reply was deleted.
More stuff to read
When Zac Lomax approached the Eels hierarchy in 2025 that he would like to depart the club only one year into a four year deal, it was clear the representative winger was going his own way.
Parramatta, while not exactly keen to release a marquee…
Parramatta, while not exactly keen to release a marquee…
"As per comment above, "It also opens up a roster spot and cap space so we can go to market."
Have you also not seen him play recently?"
Have you also not seen him play recently?"
"Ryles is wanting speed.
He wants fast mobile forwards and speedy backs
Howarth does tick a box for the 6 man interchange.
A 2nd rower who can play centre could be valuable "
He wants fast mobile forwards and speedy backs
Howarth does tick a box for the 6 man interchange.
A 2nd rower who can play centre could be valuable "
"I have a feeling Melbourne will go cold on this now that we have called their bluff. Not sure where that leaves the situation. It's unfathomable what Schifcofske has done here. What's more baffling is that the media seems to have left him alone. "
Replies
Was a great try and a great finish. The commentators and the fams ruined it, not the refs
I think it was great refereeing, the referee got the call right and roosters went 90m to score. Was absolutely brilliant what a try. Canberra not good enough to defend that try they dont deserve to win it...
Great refereeing?
The decision by the dominant referee should never have been changed.
Raiders were awarded 6 again.
They played to that decision.
At the end of the day, it Canberra score overturn the ruling.
How many times has an obstruction been let go if it doesn’t lead to a try?
The referees decision led to an unfair advantage to the Roosters. Canberra could of had a repeat set had they been advised it was the last tackle.
If you have played the game before, you would know you go to ground when given a tackle restart.
As per the trainers indiscretion in the first half, what should of happened?
Scrum with the loose head and the feed to the attacking team. Yes Canberra should have had the loose head & feed as they were the attacking team.
Refereeing was poor
I can’t believe after all this bullshit has happened no one understands the rules. It should have been a loose head and feed to the Raiders as the referee indicated an incorrect decision during live play. Advantage needs to go to the attacking team
Attacking Team is the team, which at the time has a territorial advantage. If a scrum is to be formed on the halfway line the team which last touched the ball before it went out of play is the attacking team.
You clearly don't know the rules, firstly Keary's legs were taken out when he kicked so should have been a roosters penalty, lets ignore that, secondly field position determines who is the attacking team not possession (roosters had possession anyway) the kick and ball hitting the trainer happened in the raiders half which means the roosters were the attacking team, if it happened in the rooster half the raiders would have got the feed.
Read my post again before you tell me I don’t know the rules. I’m a qualified referee and coach, are you?
I’m talking about the change in ruling from the 6 again call HKF.
I’m not disputing the charge down and interference by the trainer, that was just bad luck. Additionally you are incorrect as the player attacked the ball not Keary’s legs. (Did he not get the ball in the charge down?)
I’m disputing the change in decision that directly misled the attacking team into believing the tackle count had restarted.
If Cummings was not sure that the ball had been played at, he should never have indicated the tackle count had restarted. The referee directly interfered with the play with an incorrect decision. No different to the trainer interfering with the play.
the decision should have been a scrum with loose & feed to the attacking team.
Truly in your post above you clearly state in relation to the trainer indiscretion the raiders should get the head and feed as they were the attacking team. This is where you are wrong and I am a qualified coach.
Truly, read it again, I state "as per" that decision.
I never stated the charge down decision was incorrect.
I'm not wrong
Truly was auto correct, it should be turpy.
In your earlier post you ask the question, " As per the trainers inddiscretion in the first half, what should of happened"? You then answer by saying the raiders should get the head and feed ad they were the attacking team.
How am I reading it wrong? What am I missing?.
-
8
-
9
-
10
-
11
-
12
of 12 Next