Raiders Review with Blake and The Pork

Post by **greeneyed** » July 6, 2023, 9:52 am

gangrenous wrote: ↑July 6, 2023, 8:25 am Tino can’t be sin binned when his actions didn’t actually prevent the quick tap. Kris (wasn’t it Kris?) still has to wait around for a Raider to be back on side, meaning there was no delay for the Raiders.

Whoever it was should get a rocket if they weren’t injured or obstructed. Because I agree it cost us a sin binned titan.

It was definitely a penalty though.

Roy Rover · Post by **Roy Rover** » July 6, 2023, 2:46 pm

gangrenous wrote: ↑July 6, 2023, 8:25 am Tino can’t be sin binned when his actions didn’t actually prevent the quick tap. Kris (wasn’t it Kris?) still has to wait around for a Raider to be back on side, meaning there was no delay for the Raiders.

Whoever it was should get a rocket if they weren’t injured or obstructed. Because I agree it cost us a sin binned titan.

The Pork got something wrong again?

I don't believe it!

El_Capitano · Post by **El_Capitano** » July 6, 2023, 4:21 pm

I don’t know if he did get it wrong, the ref couldn’t know at the time of the interference if our players would get back onside by the time Kris gets to the 20m.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

gangrenous · Post by **gangrenous** » July 6, 2023, 9:11 pm

He got it right. It’s good refereeing to let that play out.

Not to mention the interference coming back was 50/50. The second interference after it was tapped made it a guaranteed penalty and imo a mandatory sin bin had the Raiders been entitled to tap it.

Post by **greeneyed** » July 6, 2023, 9:14 pm

gangrenous wrote: ↑July 6, 2023, 9:11 pm He got it right. It’s good refereeing to let that play out.

Not to mention the interference coming back was 50/50. The second interference after it was tapped made it a guaranteed penalty and imo a mandatory sin bin had the Raiders been entitled to tap it.

50/50?! He went smack bang directly into Kris to stop him.

gangrenous · Post by **gangrenous** » July 6, 2023, 9:26 pm

Yet it had absolutely zero impact on the game.

Maybe I should watch it again. But my impression live was that he hadn’t realised Kris had taken it in goal and that he was going to stop him and then someone called out or he figured it out and didn’t go on with it. Then since there was no detrimental impact on the Raiders the ref let it slide.

Post by **greeneyed** » July 7, 2023, 12:45 am

gangrenous wrote: ↑July 6, 2023, 9:26 pm Yet it had absolutely zero impact on the game.

Maybe I should watch it again. But my impression live was that he hadn’t realised Kris had taken it in goal and that he was going to stop him and then someone called out or he figured it out and didn’t go on with it. Then since there was no detrimental impact on the Raiders the ref let it slide.

Seiffert82 · Post by **Seiffert82** » July 7, 2023, 8:50 am

Haha, yeah Tino knew exactly what he was doing. The ref just had his back turned.

gangrenous · Post by **gangrenous** » July 7, 2023, 11:56 am

Went back and watched and I stand by what I said.

With the shots available we can’t really tell what happens with Tino. But he appears relatively stationary, with Kris catching a shoulder on the way past. Relatively light, definitely 50/50 if that for a penalty.

The worse block comes from Randall who actively tries to block, but appears genuinely confused. Looks like the ref might be calling him off and he hasn’t figured out why.

Given it seems genuinely a mistake for the major component I think it’s good refereeing to not blow a penalty before confirming it was detrimental to the attacking team.

Post by **greeneyed** » July 7, 2023, 1:47 pm

I think we could forgive Tino for brushing Kris, but Randall very clearly attempts to tackle Kris! He even wraps the arms, attempted to tackle front on. It's an obvious penalty. The referee might have thought... let's play on and see what happens. But when there is no advantage in playing on, the referee must go back for such a blatant offence. The only excuse might be the referee thought there was more advantage in allowing a seven tackle set and a 20 metre tap...

gangrenous · Post by **gangrenous** » July 7, 2023, 3:05 pm

But the penalty is for obstructing the player getting to make the quick tap. Which he made with spare time. So there’s nothing really to penalise.

Also as I say based on body language it appears to have been without intent.

Post by **greeneyed** » July 7, 2023, 3:54 pm

gangrenous wrote:But the penalty is for obstructing the player getting to make the quick tap. Which he made with spare time. So there’s nothing really to penalise.

Also as I say based on body language it appears to have been without intent.

Intent is irrelevant. Impossible to even conclude it given he wraps the arms. The bottom line is you can’t obstruct a player trying to take a quick tap. It’s a penalty every day.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

gangrenous · Post by **gangrenous** » July 7, 2023, 4:18 pm

You seem to be ignoring the bit where he makes no difference to what happens. Therefore there is no obstruction.

The intent is pretty clear from the body language in my opinion. Not that he wasn’t trying to tackle Kris (he was), but he wasn’t trying to deliberately prevent a quick tap(he clearly had no idea why people were yelling at him).

Post by **greeneyed** » July 7, 2023, 4:33 pm

gangrenous wrote: ↑July 7, 2023, 4:18 pm You seem to be ignoring the bit where he makes no difference to what happens. Therefore there is no obstruction.

The intent is pretty clear from the body language in my opinion. Not that he wasn’t trying to tackle Kris (he was), but he wasn’t trying to deliberately prevent a quick tap(he clearly had no idea why people were yelling at him).

It doesn't matter. The first offence applies. "Intent" doesn't matter. Players don't mean to pick up the ball in an offside position. Or maybe they do. It's still a penalty. You can't really assess the intent. You cannot tackle the player attempting to take a quick tap. It's a black and white offence.

gangrenous · Post by **gangrenous** » July 7, 2023, 5:10 pm

Not the same.

Whether I mean to or not, playing the ball in an offside position disadvantages the opposition.

Intent *does* matter in the case of offside in assessing severity, so I don’t think that aids your position.

Post by **greeneyed** » July 7, 2023, 5:30 pm

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

gangrenous · Post by **gangrenous** » July 7, 2023, 5:45 pm

You haven’t even tried GE!

What was the disadvantage to the Raiders?

gangrenous · Post by **gangrenous** » July 7, 2023, 10:07 pm

While I’m at it I should make a full pitch for arseclown of the week.

Yes Raiders win a 10-6 record are legitimately ahead of a 10-7 team with one fewer bye. The other team has played an extra game and definitely lost. Raiders have an extra game to play where they can win and go 11-6, while if they lose in the worst case they’re still level at 10-7.

But on a serious note, love the podcast and always listen

Roy Rover · Post by **Roy Rover** » July 13, 2023, 6:12 pm

No show this week sorry.

gangrenous · Post by **gangrenous** » July 13, 2023, 6:47 pm

Roy Rover · Post by **Roy Rover** » July 19, 2023, 10:25 pm

Out Now Episode 122 - An Ambush Awaits!

Listen

gangrenous · Post by **gangrenous** » July 20, 2023, 8:45 am

Thanks for the pod

Didn’t do your research on the negative F/A top 4 spot though. GE reported here that Cowboys in 2007 were the first to do that. Finished 3rd with a differential of -71!

Finchy · Post by **Finchy** » July 20, 2023, 8:58 am

gangrenous wrote: ↑July 20, 2023, 8:45 am Thanks for the pod

Didn’t do your research on the negative F/A top 4 spot though. GE reported here that Cowboys in 2007 were the first to do that. Finished 3rd with a differential of -71!

I’ve *checked notes* and see the Cowboys had scores of 44, 54, 58, and 64 put on them that year. Incredible they finished 3rd with that level of defence!

gangrenous · Post by **gangrenous** » July 20, 2023, 9:04 am

On Trevilyan. Given the severity of the injuries he’s returning from we can’t expect him to come back where he was at. Unfortunately it’s probably more in 12 months time when we can assess if he’s got it, or if the injuries have been too damaging.

Roy Rover · Post by **Roy Rover** » July 20, 2023, 9:02 pm

gangrenous wrote:Thanks for the pod

Didn’t do your research on the negative F/A top 4 spot though. GE reported here that Cowboys in 2007 were the first to do that. Finished 3rd with a differential of -71!

Cheers. Will definitely bring it up if I can remember.

Roy Rover · Post by **Roy Rover** » July 27, 2023, 10:58 pm

Out Now Episode 123 - Another Knightmare?

Roy Rover · Post by **Roy Rover** » August 2, 2023, 11:24 pm

Out Now Episode 124 - Bateman Returns

Velda · Post by **Velda** » August 5, 2023, 7:13 am

Was the NRLW result mentioned?

gangrenous · Post by **gangrenous** » August 5, 2023, 1:00 pm

Ooh I was the highly coveted listener of the week?!

I had a shocker of a week and only got to listen to the first half of last weeks ep ahead of the Knights game. Was tragic fan enough to go back and listen despite getting mauled, but nearly missed it!

Roy Rover · Post by **Roy Rover** » August 9, 2023, 11:01 pm

Out Now Episode 125 - Strange Days

Post by **greeneyed** » August 10, 2023, 1:23 am

Ethan Strange joined the Raiders last year, not this year…

viewtopic.php?t=35027

Initially signed for 2023, but released to the Raiders during 2022.

Poor Paul Crawley…

Roy Rover · Post by **Roy Rover** » August 10, 2023, 7:22 am

Glad to see I was able to illustrate my own point that not many people know much about Ethan Strange.

I’m glad I got the Central Coast part right at least.

Roy Rover · Post by **Roy Rover** » August 17, 2023, 10:51 pm

Out Now Episode 126 - Sour Times

Roy Rover · Post by **Roy Rover** » August 23, 2023, 11:11 pm

Out Now Episode 127 - The Club Loves A Hooker

Roy Rover · Post by **Roy Rover** » August 30, 2023, 10:42 pm

Out Now Episode 128 - Rugby League Has Died