Grand Final - Sea Eagles vs Warriors (Post-Match starts pg 4)

[Mister Wright]

Bloody hell, I hate Manly winning. The decision not to penalise Watmough was an absolute joke!

 

[Porthoz]

Absolute crock. Once again the refs have a decisive influence in a game, and I don't think it's a coincidence that Manly is once again involved... :ranting:

 

[Bucking Beads]

Most of the calls the refs missed or let go were very obvious IMO. Good game ruined by Archer and his mate. That said Manly are deserving premiers. Hate the scum

 

[OXY-351]

This game just sums up this finals series. There's simply been no worse refereeing performances over the course of a finals series in the history of the game.

How did they miss that 'play the ball' from Watmough and the obstruction from Cherry-Evans in the lead up to his try.

It's a disgrace.

Agreed. Wasn't it Watmough who also played the ball in a similar fashion for Manly's first try against the Broncos last week too?

It seemed like everytime Manly lost the ball, it was either called play on or they got a penalty for a strip, yet everytime the warriors lost the ball it was called a knock on and pulled up for a scrum. The warriors certainly made more mistakes than the eagles, but it just seemed like the 50/50 calls all went to the eagles.

 

[Coxy]

Yep, much like the preliminary final. All the calls went Manly's way, and their opposition (Broncos and then Warriors) just weren't good enough to compensate for the rough end of the pineapple that was being inserted on a regular basis.

I've never seen a team have as much luck as Manly have had this season. The number of kicks that ricocheted off posts, other players, whatever straight into the arms of chasers. The number of 50-50 calls they got. The number of times "loose balls" went backwards and often resulted in breaks or tries immediately. It was phenomenal. I know the old saying goes that you make your own luck, but please...I'm now certain there's voodoo magic at work on this 2011 season. Hopefully whoever it is is burnt at the stake during the offseason so next season can see good triumph over evil.

 

[mrslong]

Well, Manly has been paid back for all the *cough*NRL hate*cough* NRL have made sure that Manly can leave them alone for a while now.

I hope they go over their books though, and that even though Jamie Lyon doesn't "want" to play rep footy he's still considered a "rep" player. They still have 10 players from 2008 grand final. Imagine if we'd still had 10 players from the 2006 GF win in 2009 GF and had won it. People would be HOWLING that we were salary cap cheats.

--

The reffing was terrible, think it was mostly Cecchin's bad calls then archers.

The reffing was no where near as bad as the prelim final though.

 

[OXY-351]

They still have 10 players from 2008 grand final. Imagine if we'd still had 10 players from the 2006 GF win in 2009 GF and had won it. People would be HOWLING that we were salary cap cheats.

I think the big difference is that they have been able to unearth 2 talented playmakers in their halves, that on their current contracts, wouldn't be chewing up too much of their salary cap. So they've managed to hang on to some of their bigger stars (Stewart brothers, Lyon etc) by replacing thier playmakers (Orford etc) with cheaper versions.

I know everyone loves to hate Manly, but they are quite a good team.

 

[Coxy]

I know everyone loves to hate Manly, but they are quite a good team.

Grudgingly agree.

And also agree there's no hint of salary cap infringement IMO.

 

[Big Pete]

The thing that pisses me off about Manly is that we haven't been able to play them without both sides having the bulk of their playing roster since 2006.

 

[schmix]

Just moving this from Live Game Chat to general League Talk.

Carry on folks.

 

[subsbligh]

Just another thought random thought - 2007 Manly v Storm GF, Sika Manu (or Adam Blair) took out with a high shot on Brett Stewart and didn't get sent off. Effectively ended Manly.

Perhaps justice served in a roundabout way with George Rose.

Sets a dangerous precedent of "no holds barred" in State of Origin and grand finals.

As soon as you taper malicious intent with emotion you get a worse situation? Isn't that the exact reason the high tackle and dangerous play rules are out there, as a deterrent to dangerous play?

 

[Coxy]

Just another thought random thought - 2007 Manly v Storm GF, Sika Manu (or Adam Blair) took out with a high shot on Brett Stewart and didn't get sent off. Effectively ended Manly.

Perhaps justice served in a roundabout way with George Rose.

Sets a dangerous precedent of "no holds barred" in State of Origin and grand finals.

As soon as you taper malicious intent with emotion you get a worse situation? Isn't that the exact reason the high tackle and dangerous play rules are out there, as a deterrent to dangerous play?

It'll revive the argument about whether sin bin should be opened up for foul play like that. Some might think sending Rose off for the last 60 minutes of the GF and leaving Manly with 12 men is too big a punishment, but few would argue 10 minutes would be a justified penalty.

 

[Alec]

I don't think we would have beaten Manly in 2008, but I'm positive that Lockyer's injury made us miss out on this year. We were certainties with him in the side IMHO.

 

[OXY-351]

It'll revive the argument about whether sin bin should be opened up for foul play like that. Some might think sending Rose off for the last 60 minutes of the GF and leaving Manly with 12 men is too big a punishment, but few would argue 10 minutes would be a justified penalty.

Agreed. The stupid part about it is it's the warriors who stand to lose the most out of a play such as Rose's (lets assume he caused a game ending injury), yet it will be the teams who Manly face when Rose is suspended who gain the most out of it. There needs to be more of a punishment available during the game such incidents happen.

Although some could argue not having Rose in the team actually stengthens Manly, so it's probably a bad example cause it's Rose and the last game of the season.

 

[subsbligh]

Agreed. The stupid part about it is it's the warriors who stand to lose the most out of a play such as Rose's (lets assume he caused a game ending injury), yet it will be the teams who Manly face when Rose is suspended who gain the most out of it. There needs to be more of a punishment available during the game such incidents happen.

Although some could argue not having Rose in the team actually stengthens Manly, so it's probably a bad example cause it's Rose and the last game of the season.

I like the idea of the 10 minute sin bin being used more often. Especially in the big games, where no one wants to see the contest ruined by a send-off, but there has clearly been unwanted intent on behalf of the tackler, so he should go cool his heals for 10 minutes.

Perhaps an idea could be floated that the player who committs the offence goes off the field for as long as the tackled player is off the field, or 10 minutes, whichever is longer.

 

[Bucking Beads]

If we had a 5 min sin bin like we should have he would have been sent.

 

[Coxy]

In the modern game the interchange is so important. At the moment if there's a reported offence, the "victim" gets to be replaced without it counting.
Maybe we can take that a step further and if you get reported, your team loses an interchange.

Of course, then we'd have to change this ridiculous situation where a tiny slap to the face gets reviewed by the video referee and results in a report...

 

[m1c]

He should have been sent. That wasn't reckless or careless, that was intentional. The fact he lead with the elbow confirms it. If you're going to break your fall you naturally always lead with your hand to absorb some of the force. Our refs are piss weak and IMO have been a blight on the finals. Very interested to see what hollywood has to say about their performance.