The Anti-Bronco Conspiracy

[Xzei]

“Although the Match Review Committee has deemed the contact accidental, it is important to point out that even if Martin Taupau had not been penalised, a Broncos try would not have been awarded,” he said.

“Another Raiders player would have been allowed to play the ball after Jordan Rapana left the field as there is no doubt he caught the ball cleanly and only released it after he suffered the injury.”

Source

Since when can the bunker over-turn a decision of knock-on without a challenge? The only power they had was the ability to rule foul play which is what they did by completely fabricating what happened. Taupau didn't have his hands up in the air, he was looking to make a tackle when Rapana dropped like a sack of spuds and lost the ball before going to ground.

For 100 years that's been an unfortunate accident and either play on, or scrum to the opposition team.

ive given up on trying to figure it out ive just accepted that the game has some spuds reffing it and bigger spuds in the bunker,they are trying too hard to find a penalty and eventually **** up and contradict the actual rules.

 

[Morkel]

Going the other way, I think two of the knock-ons given against the Raiders were knock-backs. They had lost their challenge (on one that was correcty ruled a knock on), but there were two that were quite sloppy but look to have been bounced backwards.

 

[ivanhungryjak]

ive given up on trying to figure it out ive just accepted that the game has some spuds reffing it and bigger spuds in the bunker,they are trying too hard to find a penalty and eventually **** up and contradict the actual rules.

That has been an issue since the Harrigan days. They come up with these bullshit statements to try and save face and it usually comes back to bite them on arse at some stage.

 

[Dash]

“Although the Match Review Committee has deemed the contact accidental, it is important to point out that even if Martin Taupau had not been penalised, a Broncos try would not have been awarded,” he said.

“Another Raiders player would have been allowed to play the ball after Jordan Rapana left the field as there is no doubt he caught the ball cleanly and only released it after he suffered the injury.”

Source

Since when can the bunker over-turn a decision of knock-on without a challenge? The only power they had was the ability to rule foul play which is what they did by completely fabricating what happened. Taupau didn't have his hands up in the air, he was looking to make a tackle when Rapana dropped like a sack of spuds and lost the ball before going to ground.

For 100 years that's been an unfortunate accident and either play on, or scrum to the opposition team.

Since when does an injury negate an error? Every time one of these controversial calls gets reviewed they completely make up a new rule to cover themselves.

 

[Foordy]

Going the other way, I think two of the knock-ons given against the Raiders were knock-backs. They had lost their challenge (on one that was correcty ruled a knock on), but there were two that were quite sloppy but look to have been bounced backwards.

it doesn't matter which way it bounces ... it only matters which direction the ball travelled when it touched the ground (or player) initially.

 

[Morkel]

it doesn't matter which way it bounces ... it only matters which direction the ball travelled when it touched the ground (or player) initially.

I meant, it came off the Raiders player backwards and continued to bounce backwards. It looked sloppy but definitely appeared to go backwards at all times.

 

[Kimlo]

“Although the Match Review Committee has deemed the contact accidental, it is important to point out that even if Martin Taupau had not been penalised, a Broncos try would not have been awarded,” he said.

“Another Raiders player would have been allowed to play the ball after Jordan Rapana left the field as there is no doubt he caught the ball cleanly and only released it after he suffered the injury.”

Source

Since when can the bunker over-turn a decision of knock-on without a challenge? The only power they had was the ability to rule foul play which is what they did by completely fabricating what happened. Taupau didn't have his hands up in the air, he was looking to make a tackle when Rapana dropped like a sack of spuds and lost the ball before going to ground.

For 100 years that's been an unfortunate accident and either play on, or scrum to the opposition team.

This is where I lose respect for the NRL. Just admit it when you make a mistake and move on, instead they invent a reason to back their incorrect call.

 

[McHunt]

No charges in 6 rounds. The pro Broncos bias imposed by the NRL organized crime cartel has never been more obvious. I am literally shaking right now.

 

[Big Pete]

This moment has stuck with me for 20+ years.

It's unfortunate but injuries have never negated mistakes.

Hell Ikin didn't even lose the ball in that situation.

 

[LittleDavey]

“Although the Match Review Committee has deemed the contact accidental, it is important to point out that even if Martin Taupau had not been penalised, a Broncos try would not have been awarded,” he said.

“Another Raiders player would have been allowed to play the ball after Jordan Rapana left the field as there is no doubt he caught the ball cleanly and only released it after he suffered the injury.”

Source

Since when can the bunker over-turn a decision of knock-on without a challenge? The only power they had was the ability to rule foul play which is what they did by completely fabricating what happened. Taupau didn't have his hands up in the air, he was looking to make a tackle when Rapana dropped like a sack of spuds and lost the ball before going to ground.

For 100 years that's been an unfortunate accident and either play on, or scrum to the opposition team.

Exactly this. Ref called knock on, so that was play on at that point. Capewell picks up the ball, and scores. That's a Broncos try. The whistle didn't blow until after Capewell goes over IIRC. There was no challenge, no stoppage in play. Sure you don't like to see it but same as those other examples...it happens sometimes, it's play on unless there's a knock on both ways. Terrible, terrible decision for mine even in the cold light of day today.

 

[McHunt]

Exactly this. Ref called knock on, so that was play on at that point. Capewell picks up the ball, and scores. That's a Broncos try. The whistle didn't blow until after Capewell goes over IIRC. There was no challenge, no stoppage in play. Sure you don't like to see it but same as those other examples...it happens sometimes, it's play on unless there's a knock on both ways. Terrible, terrible decision for mine even in the cold light of day today.

You could present a case for it going a few different ways - and I've seen fans from other clubs do exactly that all with great confidence - but once it went to the Bunker it had to be called a careless blow to the head, which is a penalty and on report (let the MRC dissect it later). Once it's a penalty for that, it's no try, no scrum, Raider's ball. I wish it hadn't been called back, but I think it's just one of those coin tosses that went the other way.

 

[Santa]

Joey knows what's up.

 

[Big Pete]

Joey knows what's up.

I'm catching up on the Sunday Footy Show as we speak and was about to relay this.

Basically it boils down to whether or not you think Rapana could have done anything differently. Freddy and Billy believe he had no other choice than to dive for safety thus onus was on Taupau to avoid the collision. Joey believes it was part in parcel of the game and it was Rapana who contributed to the injury by dropping down.

I'd love to know if there was any precedent before this.

 

[Santa]

I'm catching up on the Sunday Footy Show as we speak and was about to relay this.

Basically it boils down to whether or not you think Rapana could have done anything differently. Freddy and Billy believe he had no other choice than to dive for safety thus onus was on Taupau to avoid the collision. Joey believes it was part in parcel of the game and it was Rapana who contributed to the injury by dropping down.

I'd love to know if there was any precedent before this.

Closest thing I remember was Tedesco getting knocked out in origin, but he slipped into Papaliis knee.

 

[Foordy]

I'm catching up on the Sunday Footy Show as we speak and was about to relay this.

Basically it boils down to whether or not you think Rapana could have done anything differently. Freddy and Billy believe he had no other choice than to dive for safety thus onus was on Taupau to avoid the collision. Joey believes it was part in parcel of the game and it was Rapana who contributed to the injury by dropping down.

I'd love to know if there was any precedent before this.

It was interesting watch Freddy try to out the blame on Flegs for getting knocked out. because Flegs was the defender ... Defenders shouldn't have to try and avoid a swinging elbow on top of everything else that is put on them these days.

IMO, both situations are very similar in that they were both clear accidents even though contact was made with the head. either they are both penalties or both ruled as accidentally, so play on

 

[McHunt]

I'm catching up on the Sunday Footy Show as we speak and was about to relay this.

Basically it boils down to whether or not you think Rapana could have done anything differently. Freddy and Billy believe he had no other choice than to dive for safety thus onus was on Taupau to avoid the collision. Joey believes it was part in parcel of the game and it was Rapana who contributed to the injury by dropping down.

I'd love to know if there was any precedent before this.

That's pretty much how I saw it too, and why I think the Bunker would err in that direction and leave the more serious deliberation of the incident to the MRC. Hit to the head. Maybe could have been avoided. Therefore careless. That's a penalty. We cry foul. If it isn't, the other team cries foul. Can't win either way.

We wouldn't be making a big deal out of this penalty if it weren't our 11th hour chance at levelling the scores. The refs shouldn't attach any weight to where it occurred, the points on the board or the impact on the result. That would be a bias.

I think it was one of those incidents that a panel could argue over, whatabouting precedents but not reaching a consensus. But the job of the ref/bunker is to give it due process, rule quickly and decisively, and let the game continue. We have to live with their decision, knowing it might not stand the forensic scrutiny of a thousand freeze-frame rewinds on panel shows. They're not always perfect. And neither are we.

 

[BroncsFan]

Since when does an injury negate an error? Every time one of these controversial calls gets reviewed they completely make up a new rule to cover themselves.

It can only negate the error if the ref blows time off before they let go of the ball.

 

[Big Del]

Exactly this. Ref called knock on, so that was play on at that point. Capewell picks up the ball, and scores. That's a Broncos try. The whistle didn't blow until after Capewell goes over IIRC. There was no challenge, no stoppage in play. Sure you don't like to see it but same as those other examples...it happens sometimes, it's play on unless there's a knock on both ways. Terrible, terrible decision for mine even in the cold light of day today.

Rapana caught the ball clean .
Tapau`s knee smashed into his head . He lets go of the ball as a reaction . Penalty for contacting the head .

The ref may not have seen Tapau`s knee glance the head . Replay showed it . Bunker over ruled . End of story .

The game could , and should have been won long before that hail Mary .