2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day

[Raider Azz]

Fwiw I thought Papalii clearly went off his natural line to impede a player there

From what I understand if he lifted a foot one more time it would've been a penalty

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

I mean great for us I guess
But all I know is Papalii deliberately moved off his line and into the kick chaser and impeded

I mean I’ll take it but again, let’s remember some of the times a call goes our way

One foot was firmly planted to the ground at least. He didn’t move off the spot. How does he change his line when doesn’t move off the spot. I mean… seriously! That’s why the bunker over ruled. The penalty on field was a downright ridiculous call.

Give it to Botman to call a decision "lucky" when every other NRL pundit and fan agrees that overturning the call was the correct decision!

Can't wait for a ridiculous call to go against us in the near future and Botty to smugly say "oh but remember that one time against the storm when the correct decision was made!"

[Sid]

Here's a sub plot I took from the game yesterday.

I have never seen a team be so obvious about having hands on the ball in defence for 80 minutes. All the way into the ruck on many occasions too. There would have been scores of instances where a penalty should have gone to Canberra if the ball was lost.

As per usual a Bellamy led Melbourne pushing the issue with something else that creates a really poor spectacle.

100%

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

[Botman]

Fwiw I thought Papalii clearly went off his natural line to impede a player there

From what I understand if he lifted a foot one more time it would've been a penalty

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

I mean great for us I guess
But all I know is Papalii deliberately moved off his line and into the kick chaser and impeded

I mean I’ll take it but again, let’s remember some of the times a call goes our way

One foot was firmly planted to the ground at least. He didn’t move off the spot. How does he change his line when doesn’t move off the spot. I mean… seriously! That’s why the bunker over ruled. The penalty on field was a downright ridiculous call.

Give it to Botman to call a decision "lucky" when every other NRL pundit and fan agrees that overturning the call was the correct decision!

Can't wait for a ridiculous call to go against us in the near future and Botty to smugly say "oh but remember that one time against the storm when the correct decision was made!"

I dont need to, Azz!
You see, my dear friend Finchy has already laid the ground work

Instead i'll smugly say "The incident was reviewed and confirmed/overturned by the officials, so it must be correct. If it wasnt, they wouldnt have made the call!"

[BJ]

Cmon Raiders players, pick up your act.

You play to the whistle when Touchie puts his flag up and let the Sharks score and then you again play to the fake whistle when the Storm score.

How about you make your tackles and worry about the officials later.

[Botman]

The fake whistle thing was very weird! At least 3 players reacted to something and live i thought i heard a whistle, but it seems like it might have come from the crowd or something

Strange situation.

[BJ]

From what I understand if he lifted a foot one more time it would've been a penalty

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

I mean great for us I guess
But all I know is Papalii deliberately moved off his line and into the kick chaser and impeded

I mean I’ll take it but again, let’s remember some of the times a call goes our way

One foot was firmly planted to the ground at least. He didn’t move off the spot. How does he change his line when doesn’t move off the spot. I mean… seriously! That’s why the bunker over ruled. The penalty on field was a downright ridiculous call.

Give it to Botman to call a decision "lucky" when every other NRL pundit and fan agrees that overturning the call was the correct decision!

Can't wait for a ridiculous call to go against us in the near future and Botty to smugly say "oh but remember that one time against the storm when the correct decision was made!"

I dont need to, Azz!
You see, my dear friend Finchy has already laid the ground work

Instead i'll smugly say "The incident was reviewed and confirmed/overturned by the officials, so it must be correct. If it wasnt, they wouldnt have made the call!"

I’ll be interested to see if Annesley says it was the ref or video ref who made the wrong call.

I think Klein clearly overreacted to the contact based on how that call has been made for over a century of rugby league, but these player reaction movements are very grey area decisions that can be made to look much worse in super slow motion.

I remember getting penalised and binned for accidentally catching an opponents legs with my feet as I chased a break (I know that I didn’t mean to clip him, he cut straight across in front of me) other players thought the same. But when I later watched the single camera Betamax that filmed our games, in slow motion it looked like I moved my leg to trip the player instead of me stepping whilst trying to avoid contact.

[Raider Azz]

I dont need to, Azz!
You see, my dear friend Finchy has already laid the ground work

Instead i'll smugly say "The incident was reviewed and confirmed/overturned by the officials, so it must be correct. If it wasnt, they wouldnt have made the call!"

[Roger Kenworthy]

I can't understate the footy IQ of that Schiller try. Special stuff.

A great effort all round that only makes me angry about the end to the last game tbh.

Yeah Schiller is a special player, has a high ceiling we will be well covered by 2024 when rapa retires, with Harley Smith shields coming back and hopefully getting an extended run with no injuries

Rapa and Cotric aren’t premiership wingers for us. The sooner we start to transition to the guys that might be the better

Billy -if you are going to start dropping players because they haven't won a premiership with us then I don't know who you'll be trotting out. Matt Gafa based on the 03 reggies win perhaps.

Nothing to do with haven’t won a premiership mate, all to do with who will be part of a future premiership team and hot tip Rapa, Whitehead, Papa won’t be part of it unless we win in 23 or 24 and that is unlikely I think. We need to start transitioning to the players who will are possible premiership players over time. Raps has been great - one of our best, but his chance to win a premiership with us has passed and he’s only going to impede the development of someone who might win one.

In 15 we would have said it's unlikely we win in 16, in 18 we would have said it's unlikely we win in 19. We gave it a good shake both those years. In the NRL I don't think you can afford to look too far ahead, and it you do and it all goes to plan it's still likely the salary cap kneecaps you before you get there.

Agree on Whitehead as he isn't NRL quality as it stands.

[gerg]

I’ll remind the GH of this next time this happens and the raiders don’t get a penalty and you’re all blowing up about it

Anyways, I thought it was a good solid win, nothing special but they worked hard, dug deep at the end and at times the attacking structure actually didn’t look too bad!

Thanks for pointing that out. it’s nice to see some someone on this forum actually noticed that:
We had some shape
We could pass the ball more than once without dropping it
got the ball to our wingers more than once
Our 6,7 and 1 seem to actually know each other’s first names

We’re we perfect? far from it. Are we now a good team? probably not but I’m more than happy to be proven wrong in the next 6 odd weeks. So we could be happy to have seen an improved performance that resulted in a win or we can bitch and moan…

Good point on finally being able to run a backline move and get the ball to centre/wing on either side.

We managed to succesfully pass around compressed defence coming out of our own 20m a few times too, which every decent team does.

Took us 18 rounds to get there though, which I find a little disappointing. But still pleased to actually see it. Also good to see Starling come on just before half-time and overall I thought the interchange use was improved.

[BJ]

I’m shocked Rapa has been hit with a grade 2 head high (2-3 weeks). I didn’t think it was any worse than the head highs you see week in and week out for minimal charges.

Time we fought one of these judiciary charges.

[Finchy]

I didn’t think it was any worse than the head highs you see week in and week out for minimal charges.

Narrator: It wasn't. Yet the anti-Raiders bias from the NRL shows up yet again.

[Botman]

I mean great for us I guess
But all I know is Papalii deliberately moved off his line and into the kick chaser and impeded

I mean I’ll take it but again, let’s remember some of the times a call goes our way

One foot was firmly planted to the ground at least. He didn’t move off the spot. How does he change his line when doesn’t move off the spot. I mean… seriously! That’s why the bunker over ruled. The penalty on field was a downright ridiculous call.

Give it to Botman to call a decision "lucky" when every other NRL pundit and fan agrees that overturning the call was the correct decision!

Can't wait for a ridiculous call to go against us in the near future and Botty to smugly say "oh but remember that one time against the storm when the correct decision was made!"

I dont need to, Azz!
You see, my dear friend Finchy has already laid the ground work

Instead i'll smugly say "The incident was reviewed and confirmed/overturned by the officials, so it must be correct. If it wasnt, they wouldnt have made the call!"

I’ll be interested to see if Annesley says it was the ref or video ref who made the wrong call.

I think Klein clearly overreacted to the contact based on how that call has been made for over a century of rugby league, but these player reaction movements are very grey area decisions that can be made to look much worse in super slow motion.

I remember getting penalised and binned for accidentally catching an opponents legs with my feet as I chased a break (I know that I didn’t mean to clip him, he cut straight across in front of me) other players thought the same. But when I later watched the single camera Betamax that filmed our games, in slow motion it looked like I moved my leg to trip the player instead of me stepping whilst trying to avoid contact.

I'm not sure it will come up. But if it does i expect he'll back the decision to over turn it and if it does come up ill be mostly interested in hearing exactly how Annesley sees the rule should be interpreted. Papalii very obviously sees Wishart and makes a deliberate movement toward the player. Whether he's entitled to that movement under the current laws and interpretations because he's got one foot planted, or it wasnt enough movement to rise to the level of a penalty, or maybe the review official simply sided with others here who say he just ran into him and Papalii didnt make any movement whatsoever!

Whatever the case maybe, that's what I'm most interested in. What is actually the rule here and how does the referees boss think it should be officiated and interpreted.

And all jokes aside, here is the reality, we'll see that sort of play get penalised many times this year, we'll probably even see a play like that get challenged and the ruling come down differently to what happened last night. But what I can promise you is that at some point somewhere down the line, we're going to have a player taken out in a similar fashion, and no penalty will be awarded and we'll have a dozen of the very same people now saying it's clearly not a penalty, screaming blue murder about how it's a clear and obvious penalty.

[Wiki Special]

One foot was firmly planted to the ground at least. He didn’t move off the spot. How does he change his line when doesn’t move off the spot. I mean… seriously! That’s why the bunker over ruled. The penalty on field was a downright ridiculous call.

Give it to Botman to call a decision "lucky" when every other NRL pundit and fan agrees that overturning the call was the correct decision!

Can't wait for a ridiculous call to go against us in the near future and Botty to smugly say "oh but remember that one time against the storm when the correct decision was made!"

I dont need to, Azz!
You see, my dear friend Finchy has already laid the ground work

Instead i'll smugly say "The incident was reviewed and confirmed/overturned by the officials, so it must be correct. If it wasnt, they wouldnt have made the call!"

I’ll be interested to see if Annesley says it was the ref or video ref who made the wrong call.

I think Klein clearly overreacted to the contact based on how that call has been made for over a century of rugby league, but these player reaction movements are very grey area decisions that can be made to look much worse in super slow motion.

I remember getting penalised and binned for accidentally catching an opponents legs with my feet as I chased a break (I know that I didn’t mean to clip him, he cut straight across in front of me) other players thought the same. But when I later watched the single camera Betamax that filmed our games, in slow motion it looked like I moved my leg to trip the player instead of me stepping whilst trying to avoid contact.

I'm not sure it will come up. But if it does i expect he'll back the decision to over turn it and if it does come up ill be mostly interested in hearing exactly how Annesley sees the rule should be interpreted. Papalii very obviously sees Wishart and makes a deliberate movement toward the player. Whether he's entitled to that movement under the current laws and interpretations because he's got one foot planted, or it wasnt enough movement to rise to the level of a penalty, or maybe the review official simply sided with others here who say he just ran into him and Papalii didnt make any movement whatsoever!

Whatever the case maybe, that's what I'm most interested in. What is actually the rule here and how does the referees boss think it should be officiated and interpreted.

And all jokes aside, here is the reality, we'll see that sort of play get penalised many times this year, we'll probably even see a play like that get challenged and the ruling come down differently to what happened last night. But what I can promise you is that at some point somewhere down the line, we're going to have a player taken out in a similar fashion, and no penalty will be awarded and we'll have a dozen of the very same people now saying it's clearly not a penalty, screaming blue murder about how it's a clear and obvious penalty.

But that won't mean it should be a penalty, just as you saying yesterday it was doesn't mean it should have been. In my view - and most others, including neutral fans - the Bunker made the correct call.

[Northern Raider]

So who's enjoying the latest installment of "Botman vs the World"?

[daley6]

I’ll remind the GH of this next time this happens and the raiders don’t get a penalty and you’re all blowing up about it

Anyways, I thought it was a good solid win, nothing special but they worked hard, dug deep at the end and at times the attacking structure actually didn’t look too bad!

Thanks for pointing that out. it’s nice to see some someone on this forum actually noticed that:
We had some shape
We could pass the ball more than once without dropping it
got the ball to our wingers more than once
Our 6,7 and 1 seem to actually know each other’s first names

We’re we perfect? far from it. Are we now a good team? probably not but I’m more than happy to be proven wrong in the next 6 odd weeks. So we could be happy to have seen an improved performance that resulted in a win or we can bitch and moan…

Yeah was hoping people would be talking about this, just the way we spread the ball with our props also passing the ball along to the halves getting it out wide, we were actually easily getting out of our own half doing this , this better not just be a storm gameplan i want to see it every week , our metres are usually terrible but looked good yesterday

[Finchy]

I usually, perhaps naively, see Botman as the voice of reason on this forum. An arrogant voice no doubt, with the tactfulness of a sledgehammer to the face, but a voice of reason no less. Usually he can see through the one-eyed Raiders supporter-bias and call it how it is.

However on occasions, such as this, he goes too far playing devils-advocate and will defend the referee even when blind Freddy can see it was the wrong call. Even when overturned on review, the referee was still apparently right because the bunker stuffs up so often that they can't be trusted that they got this call right.

I'm afraid Bot's by himself on this one.

[rayden83]

It clearly wasnt a penalty, its not even ambiguous. Wishart (I thought it was Munster?) runs straight into Papalii, like literally, STRAIGHT INTO HIM. He didnt even attempt to regather the ball, he was OBVIOUSLY gunning for a penalty.

Papalii might have shifted his body position somewhat, but no different than happens probably half a dozen times a game, at least, and play is allowed to continue. For an obstruction penalty to be awarded, it has to be more flagrant than a) defender shifting his body weight a little and b) the chasing player to run STRAIGHT into the defending player to milk a penalty. STRAIGHT INTO HIM!

That is why the bunker overturned the refs call so quickly. I suppose there is a technical argument that a penalty should have been awarded, but if you’re going to be a total stickler for the rules and laws of the game, hyper focusing on every little technical detail, there would be a hundred penalties awarded every game. That’s common sense rule needs to apply also.

[Botman]

I usually, perhaps naively, see Botman as the voice of reason on this forum. An arrogant voice no doubt, with the tactfulness of a sledgehammer to the face, but a voice of reason no less. Usually he can see through the one-eyed Raiders supporter-bias and call it how it is.

However on occasions, such as this, he goes too far playing devils-advocate and will defend the referee even when blind Freddy can see it was the wrong call. Even when overturned on review, the referee was still apparently right because the bunker stuffs up so often that they can't be trusted that they got this call right.

I'm afraid Bot's by himself on this one.

I literally never said anything close to that.
In fact it was you who said the call was reviewed and reversed therefore that's proof it was incorrect and i simply told you that you'd rue the day you played that card

[Finchy]

I usually, perhaps naively, see Botman as the voice of reason on this forum. An arrogant voice no doubt, with the tactfulness of a sledgehammer to the face, but a voice of reason no less. Usually he can see through the one-eyed Raiders supporter-bias and call it how it is.

However on occasions, such as this, he goes too far playing devils-advocate and will defend the referee even when blind Freddy can see it was the wrong call. Even when overturned on review, the referee was still apparently right because the bunker stuffs up so often that they can't be trusted that they got this call right.

I'm afraid Bot's by himself on this one.

I literally never said anything close to that.
In fact it was you who said the call was reviewed and reversed therefore that's proof it was incorrect and i simply told you that you'd rue the day you played that card

So you agree the bunker got it right in this instance, and the referee was wrong? If so, I retract it. If not, then the bolded part is your position.

[Azza]

So who's enjoying the latest installment of "Botman vs the World"?

It's pretty boring. Preferred the top gun sequel.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[greeneyed]

I’m shocked Rapa has been hit with a grade 2 head high (2-3 weeks). I didn’t think it was any worse than the head highs you see week in and week out for minimal charges.

Time we fought one of these judiciary charges.

I'm shocked too. The shoulder charge... I just went back to look at it. The contact was minimal and involved absolutely no dangerous contact, no penalty even awarded on the field. He's developing a technique problem, but a charge and a $3,000 fine seems well over the top.

[greeneyed]

[gerg]

I’m shocked Rapa has been hit with a grade 2 head high (2-3 weeks). I didn’t think it was any worse than the head highs you see week in and week out for minimal charges.

Time we fought one of these judiciary charges.

I'm shocked too. The shoulder charge... I just went back to look at it. The contact was minimal and involved absolutely no dangerous contact, no penalty even awarded on the field. He's developing a technique problem, but a charge and a $3,000 fine seems well over the top.

Did he get charged for a shoulder charge too? Any charge for Olams?

[Botman]

I usually, perhaps naively, see Botman as the voice of reason on this forum. An arrogant voice no doubt, with the tactfulness of a sledgehammer to the face, but a voice of reason no less. Usually he can see through the one-eyed Raiders supporter-bias and call it how it is.

However on occasions, such as this, he goes too far playing devils-advocate and will defend the referee even when blind Freddy can see it was the wrong call. Even when overturned on review, the referee was still apparently right because the bunker stuffs up so often that they can't be trusted that they got this call right.

I'm afraid Bot's by himself on this one.

I literally never said anything close to that.
In fact it was you who said the call was reviewed and reversed therefore that's proof it was incorrect and i simply told you that you'd rue the day you played that card

So you agree the bunker got it right in this instance, and the referee was wrong? If so, I retract it. If not, then the bolded part is your position.

Well no, that's not my position at all, no matter how many times you try and tell me it is.
We KNOW your position though and that is that it was reviewed and overturned. So it has to be the right call. Because if it wasn't they wouldn't have over turned it. Which I truly can not thank you enough for. I'm going to have some fun with that, Finchy

I think given Papalii very clearly and deliberately moved to impede a player, i didn't have a problem with the penalty being blown. I think when an official sees a player deliberately motion like that on a chaser, he's going to blow that all day and every day if he sees it.
But it was challenged and it was over turned.

There is a few options as to why it could have been overturned:
1. The replay official simply doesn't think Papalii did deliberately move with the intention of impeding the player. In which case i'd say replay official is wrong.

b. There is some technical aspect of the rule where because Papalii didn't do x,y or z (I've seen it reference a few times here and other places about a foot being firmly planted) that his movement was legal even if it was deliberate and impeded a player. In which case the referee and i, are wrong.

Or (and this is probably the most likely reason i'd say)
iii. The replay official didnt believe Papalii's actions rose to the level of a penalty and felt the chasing player was equally responsible for running into Papalii as Papalii was getting in his way. In which case i'd say reasonable minds could disagree and i personally see it as 50/50 call that ultimately (albeit on review) fell our way.

[gerg]

Just on Papalii and that incident. Why is a player able to shepherd a ball into touch or over the dead ball line by obstructing a player but you can't do it in any other circumstance?

[hrundi89]

How can a player impede if he hasn't moved his feet? Very bizarre that people would defend Klein on that call.

I agree. 100% the spirit of the rule should be based on a player moving position to get in the way. If the attacker runs at a stationary player who isn't offside and gets impeded then tough.

The dives from Hughes were outright embarrassing. Supposed toughest sport in the world and Papa lightly grabs his sleeve. Goes down like he's been shot. Cringeworthy stuff. Don't ever complain about soccer.

[Billy Walker]

I usually, perhaps naively, see Botman as the voice of reason on this forum. An arrogant voice no doubt, with the tactfulness of a sledgehammer to the face, but a voice of reason no less. Usually he can see through the one-eyed Raiders supporter-bias and call it how it is.

However on occasions, such as this, he goes too far playing devils-advocate and will defend the referee even when blind Freddy can see it was the wrong call. Even when overturned on review, the referee was still apparently right because the bunker stuffs up so often that they can't be trusted that they got this call right.

I'm afraid Bot's by himself on this one.

I literally never said anything close to that.
In fact it was you who said the call was reviewed and reversed therefore that's proof it was incorrect and i simply told you that you'd rue the day you played that card

So you agree the bunker got it right in this instance, and the referee was wrong? If so, I retract it. If not, then the bolded part is your position.

Well no, that's not my position at all, no matter how many times you try and tell me it is.
We KNOW your position though and that is that it was reviewed and overturned. So it has to be the right call. Because if it wasn't they wouldn't have over turned it. Which I truly can not thank you enough for. I'm going to have some fun with that, Finchy

I think given Papalii very clearly and deliberately moved to impede a player, i didn't have a problem with the penalty being blown. I think when an official sees a player deliberately motion like that on a chaser, he's going to blow that all day and every day if he sees it.
But it was challenged and it was over turned.

There is a few options as to why it could have been overturned:
1. The replay official simply doesn't think Papalii did deliberately move with the intention of impeding the player. In which case i'd say replay official is wrong.

b. There is some technical aspect of the rule where because Papalii didn't do x,y or z (I've seen it reference a few times here and other places about a foot being firmly planted) that his movement was legal even if it was deliberate and impeded a player. In which case the referee and i, are wrong.

Or (and this is probably the most likely reason i'd say)
iii. The replay official didnt believe Papalii's actions rose to the level of a penalty and felt the chasing player was equally responsible for running into Papalii as Papalii was getting in his way. In which case i'd say reasonable minds could disagree and i personally see it as 50/50 call that ultimately (albeit on review) fell our way.

It’s rare that Botman gets things right but he is correct about this one.

[Northern Raider]

I usually, perhaps naively, see Botman as the voice of reason on this forum. An arrogant voice no doubt, with the tactfulness of a sledgehammer to the face, but a voice of reason no less. Usually he can see through the one-eyed Raiders supporter-bias and call it how it is.

However on occasions, such as this, he goes too far playing devils-advocate and will defend the referee even when blind Freddy can see it was the wrong call. Even when overturned on review, the referee was still apparently right because the bunker stuffs up so often that they can't be trusted that they got this call right.

I'm afraid Bot's by himself on this one.

I literally never said anything close to that.
In fact it was you who said the call was reviewed and reversed therefore that's proof it was incorrect and i simply told you that you'd rue the day you played that card

So you agree the bunker got it right in this instance, and the referee was wrong? If so, I retract it. If not, then the bolded part is your position.

Well no, that's not my position at all, no matter how many times you try and tell me it is.
We KNOW your position though and that is that it was reviewed and overturned. So it has to be the right call. Because if it wasn't they wouldn't have over turned it. Which I truly can not thank you enough for. I'm going to have some fun with that, Finchy

I think given Papalii very clearly and deliberately moved to impede a player, i didn't have a problem with the penalty being blown. I think when an official sees a player deliberately motion like that on a chaser, he's going to blow that all day and every day if he sees it.
But it was challenged and it was over turned.

There is a few options as to why it could have been overturned:
1. The replay official simply doesn't think Papalii did deliberately move with the intention of impeding the player. In which case i'd say replay official is wrong.

b. There is some technical aspect of the rule where because Papalii didn't do x,y or z (I've seen it reference a few times here and other places about a foot being firmly planted) that his movement was legal even if it was deliberate and impeded a player. In which case the referee and i, are wrong.

Or (and this is probably the most likely reason i'd say)
iii. The replay official didnt believe Papalii's actions rose to the level of a penalty and felt the chasing player was equally responsible for running into Papalii as Papalii was getting in his way. In which case i'd say reasonable minds could disagree and i personally see it as 50/50 call that ultimately (albeit on review) fell our way.

It’s rare that Botman gets things right but he is correct about this one.

It's all good, Botman. Billy's got your back.

[Botman]

Ah ****, well... that's settled that. I retract all my previous remarks. If Billy is behind us, then clearly Klein and i are wrong!
Sincere apologies people.

[Billy Walker]

Ah ****, well... that's settled that. I retract all my previous remarks. If Billy is behind us, then clearly Klein and i are wrong!
Sincere apologies people.

This bloke is easier to play than a 2 stringed fiddle!

[The Nickman]

He's right you know.

[Hong Kong Raider]

Great to see the team singing the victory song. Hoppa was in it and he sounds like a decent sensible guy from the interview as well, not like his brother Jamal or his father who I remember him playing was probably twice as worse than Luai in goading opponents, then there were flying elbows, high tackles and fingers up backsides.

Listening to Schiller's interview, it doesn't sound too bad. Hope he can play v NZ this weekend.

[Finchy]

He's right you know.

About what?

[Azza]

The baby ox/

[The Nickman]

About everything, dammit!