Grand final match thread.

[Coxy]

Roosters lost fair and sqaure. They should have been up by 20 at half time with the amount of posession they had inside Saints 20 but they Struggled. They only lead by 2 at half time and I called it then and said that Dragons will win because there's no way Roosters will get that much posession again. Roosters were average with the ball overall.

^^^ This. The Roosters' attack was utterly pathetic in the first half, and was no better in the second half. No offence Smithy, but it was a typical Brian Smith-coached Grand Final performance. Everything they'd done for the 29 weeks beforehand was forgotten and they got paralysed with fear.

 

[Dexter]

I thought the chooks were a bit stiff in some instances, Saints first try, the forward pass call while I think was right but was marginal. Having said that I agree they should have been well in front at half time, they had plenty of chances apart from their bit of bad luck.

Once the Saints decided to control the pill it was game over and the better side won no question. (Talking through my pocket as I backed the Saints by 20 plus icon_thumbs_u )

I was happy the result wasn't affected by that swinging arm on Weyman, Conn is a grub.

Agree mrs Long, Creagh is big game nuffy.

Oh, and wasn't it just GREAT to see 2 Sydney teams in the GF. :evil:

 

[Anonymous person]

Morris was clearly out. But look where the touchy was standing. He was behind the play with Perrett blocking his view of Morris's feet. Yeh, shouldve been a scrum to the Roosters, but that's footy.

Carneys pass was clearly forward.

**** why am I arguing? It's obvious that if anyone else was coaching the Dragons AP wouldn't even be posting in this thread.

Hey AP, Bennett = best coach in the history of Rugby League.

there were 2 other referees watching the play at the same time, yet they somehow missed it too. and even though he couldnt see his feet, he could deduce that his feet were in touch by the fact that he was standing on one of them, and from the position of his hips both his feet were clearly not in the field of play. if theyre not in the field of play, and hes standing on one of those feet, hes out.

i dont know why im bothering, even if the Dragons got beaten by 50 you would be on here saying how brilliant Bennett is because they didnt get beaten by 60 [icon_lol1. .

like ive said many times before, i dont like my own team winning and getting a legup by blatantly incorrect referee decisions - so i sure as hell dont like it when a team i strongly dislike win that way.

and ive disliked St George since long before Wayne Bennett was there thank you very much. it seems im one of the few people on here who HAVENT done a complete about face and gone from hating the dragons to loving them as my second team, like you and most of the others seem to have. going from hating a team to loving them because they got a different coach is like hating a team cause theyre full of grubs and players you dislike to loving that same group of players and team because they got a different little boy to run out the kicking tee. its ridiculous.

like i said, the dragons might have won regardless of all the incorrect refereeing decisions - but thats not the point. the Roosters shouldve been at least 10-0 in front, and that would be a HUGE mental hit on the dragons, going in to the second half down by 10 when theyve only won something like 3 games this season after being behind. instead they went in basically even by way of referee decisions.

@Coxy: " Up to now I've been willing to accept AP's opinion, but his blindly biased tirade in this game just shows he's a giant douche who can't hack it that Bennett is the best coach in history."

where have i said that Bennetts not the best coach in history? many times ive said that he is, and another premiership under his belt surely isnt going to make me change my mind.

but nothing ive said in this 'blindly biased tirade' has anything to do with bennett eusa_think .

were you even watching the same game as me? i thought you knew the rules of rugby league. if you do a forward pass to a player whos in front of you, thats offside. its a penalty, not a forward pass. even if you dont rule the offside, you have to give a penalty for an intentional forward pass in this instance because morris looked up at him, then a second later threw him the pass when he clearly saw the player was in front of him.

if you kick at the ball while someones trying to put it down - which soward clearly did, watch the replays to see him kick his leg at the last second (and remember it doesnt have to connect with the ball, you just have to do it) - its a penalty try. its been given a few times over the last season or 2 so far, including in an origin match, yet on this occasion? nothing. morris stood out, then the VERY NEXT TACKLE saints scored. they shouldnt have scored because they shouldnt have had the ball.

then theres the push in the back while perret was trying to catch the bomb. how the hell did they not penalise that? morris clearly just gave him the big ol' 2 handed shove right in the middle of the back. last time i checked, you werent allowed to do that. Saints score off the resulting set of 6, when yet again they shouldnt have had the ball.

and that brings me to the 'benefit of the doubt'.............f#$^ me dead. there was no doubt at all - the ball clearly bounced from the saints player, to the roosters players arm, then back into the saints players arms. from the front on replay, you see the ball come out of the dragons players arms and start heading to the left. then i suppose miraculously it just does a complete change in direction and decides it wants to go back to the right to go back to his arms [icon_lol1.. what an absolute joke.

now just to reiterate - none of that has ANYTHING to do with how good/bad Bennett is as a coach. its purely referees HEAVILY influencing the outcome of a game, and in a grand final nonetheless. it was an absolute joke.

i was expecting the dragons to win anyway btw, so the result isnt really what i care about. at half time when the roosters were leading i told everyone that i think the dragons will run away with it in the last 15-20 and win 34-14. i just hate the fact that yet another grand final was influenced by the referees, and to a very high degree at that.

 

[Coxy]

The refs did not influence the result though. Even you said that the Roosters were never going to win it.

We all hate the refs but luckily in this game the Dragons were always going to be too good. Even of chooks went in by a 10 lead at half time I rekon they would have lost. Roosters have given up leads all year, it would have not been surprising to see then give up a bigger lead than 2.

Btw - don't talk shit. The Dragons did not automatically become anyones 2nd team just coz of Wayne. I'm yet to see anyone here who has had saints as their second team. A lot of people on here went for Saints because they were the lesser of two evils to some. It is well noted that the people of BHQ did not like this Years Grand Final teams at all.

Yep, my "number 2" teams got beaten in successive weeks in the first 2 weeks of the finals, after that it was literally a case of who I hated less. [icon_lol1.

 

[mrslong]

Btw - don't talk shit. The Dragons did not automatically become anyones 2nd team just coz of Wayne. I'm yet to see anyone here who has had saints as their second team. A lot of people on here went for Saints because they were the lesser of two evils to some. It is well noted that the people of BHQ did not like this Years Grand Final teams at all.

Amen Rocky! It was certainly a case of which team do we want to see lose more (always going to be the Roosters for me). And the "bennett factor" was the only reason a lot of people wanted the dragons to win instead of the Roosters. But we didn't really care at all.

At our party yesterday during half time a lot of "choking" jokes were going on and we all liked the idea of rubbing it in should the Dragons go on to lose. [icon_lol1.

How good was it to see Jason Ryles not win! Hahahahahahaha....

 

[Coxy]

Biggest choker of the Grand Final was Todd Carney. If the NSW Origin selectors are seriously considering him for next year, look no further than yesterday's game. He choked. He couldn't handle the big game pressure.

Meanwhile Soward was yet again the consummate professional. Played a perfect hand in the GF.

IMO he has to be the NSW 5/8.

 

[Anonymous person]

The refs did not influence the result though. Even you said that the Roosters were never going to win it.

they did though. they awarded not 1, not 2, but 3 tries to the dragons that shouldnt have been given or shouldnt have been able to happen in the first place. 3 tries. thats 18 points when youve got a kicker of sowards quality.

gift one team 18 points in the grand final and 99 times out of a hundred theyll win the match.

had it been 10-0 at halftime, and had the referees not made those stupid decisions in the second half as well, i think it wouldve been a VERY different match to how it turned out.

 

[Coxy]

[quote="The Rock":jx5mh2d8]The refs did not influence the result though. Even you said that the Roosters were never going to win it.

they did though. they awarded not 1, not 2, but 3 tries to the dragons that shouldnt have been given or shouldnt have been able to happen in the first place. 3 tries. thats 18 points when youve got a kicker of sowards quality.

gift one team 18 points in the grand final and 99 times out of a hundred theyll win the match.

had it been 10-0 at halftime, and had the referees not made those stupid decisions in the second half as well, i think it wouldve been a VERY different match to how it turned out.[/quote:jx5mh2d8]

Roosters shouldn't have been given the Anasta try. I don't care what you say or the "current KPIs and interpretations for playing at the ball" are, that was a knock on. And that directly led to the Aubusson try minutes later.

Roosters should've been kept to nil.

FFS, questionable calls went both ways and they had varying degrees of momentum shift as a result. To suggest it "gifted" the Dragons victory is a joke.

Dragons completed just 9 of 20 sets in the first half.
Roosters were camped in the Dragons' half.
They managed 1 fair try and a knock on that under the current bullshit interpretations is awarded a try.

The Roosters lost because their halves and Anasta gave them no direction on field, no leadership and they were completely and utterly useless.

 

[Anonymous person]

Roosters shouldn't have been given the Anasta try. I don't care what you say or the "current KPIs and interpretations for playing at the ball" are, that was a knock on. And that directly led to the Aubusson try minutes later.

Roosters should've been kept to nil.

completely disagreed.

Soward clearly played at the ball with his legs. it wasnt a knock on in any sense of the word - it was raked by soward, and it was raked illegally so it shouldve been a penalty try.

thats what i cant understand either - the video referee agreed that it was raked, thats why he awarded the try to anasta. but if he agrees it was raked, surely he would have to see that it was raked by the legs and as such has to award the penalty try, since youre not allowed to play at the ball with your legs while an opposition player is in posession.

that is a fair try. if Soward doesnt play at the ball with his legs, he scores the try. thats a very clear penalty try. not an 8 point one, but a penalty try with a kick between the sticks.

 

[Coxy]

He placed the ball on Soward's LEG! What's Soward supposed to do? Make his leg disappear? FFS, you have NFI.

 

[Anonymous person]

He placed the ball on Soward's LEG! What's Soward supposed to do? Make his leg disappear? FFS, you have NFI.

yeah, he placed the ball on sowards leg after soward swung his legs under to play at the ball! [icon_lol1.

remember billy slater sliding in feet first? that was to get his foot under the ball, so they place the ball on his foot or leg. exactly the same thing, and EVERYONE on here b!tched and moaned about how thats illegal and dirty.

he played at it with his legs, and in doing so he made the player be unable to ground the ball. clear cut penalty try.

 

[Coxy]

He placed the ball on Soward's LEG! What's Soward supposed to do? Make his leg disappear? FFS, you have NFI.

yeah, he placed the ball on sowards leg after soward swung his legs under to play at the ball! [icon_lol1.

remember billy slater sliding in feet first? that was to get his foot under the ball, so they place the ball on his foot or leg. exactly the same thing, and EVERYONE on here b!tched and moaned about how thats illegal and dirty.

he played at it with his legs, and in doing so he made the player be unable to ground the ball. clear cut penalty try.

LOLZ!

Well I'll let my QRL referee friend know he doesn't know the rules, because he agrees 100% it was a knock on.

 

[QUEENSLANDER]

He placed the ball on Soward's LEG! What's Soward supposed to do? Make his leg disappear? FFS, you have NFI.

yeah, he placed the ball on sowards leg after soward swung his legs under to play at the ball! [icon_lol1.

remember billy slater sliding in feet first? that was to get his foot under the ball, so they place the ball on his foot or leg. exactly the same thing, and EVERYONE on here b!tched and moaned about how thats illegal and dirty.

he played at it with his legs, and in doing so he made the player be unable to ground the ball. clear cut penalty try.

LOLZ!

Well I'll let my QRL referee friend know he doesn't know the rules, because he agrees 100% it was a knock on.

good on ur QRL referee friend, but as AP already pointed out, the refs on ground obviously agree that soward raked it out, hence they gave it a try.

 

[Anonymous person]

LOLZ!

Well I'll let my QRL referee friend know he doesn't know the rules, because he agrees 100% it was a knock on.

lets face it - he probably doesnt [icon_lol1. .

the NRL standard referees dont know the rules, so why would we assume a QRL referee does?

 

[Coxy]

Because they're not coached by Robert Finch who has bastardised so many rules.

It was a 100% incorrect ruling. Should've been a 20 metre restart to the Dragons. End of story.

 

[Anonymous person]

Because they're not coached by Robert Finch who has bastardised so many rules.

It was a 100% incorrect ruling. Should've been a 20 metre restart to the Dragons. End of story.

either way, if he thinks that was a knock-on he doesnt know the rules.

soward played at it, its a rake. if he can honestly look at that tackle and say Soward didnt play at the ball then i hope he never gets called up to the NRL. we've already got enough useless referees as it is, we dont need another.

 

[Aeetee]

Ok, what if said incident happened back at the 50 and say was the 2nd game of the season. Would it have been a strip or a knock on?

 

[Anonymous person]

Ok, what if said incident happened back at the 50 and say was the 2nd game of the season. Would it have been a strip or a knock on?

it wouldnt have happened there, as he wouldnt have been reaching out to score and soward wouldnt have been trying to stop a try with his legs.

if it did for some reason, it would be a strip.