2022 NRL Finals Week 3: Teams and Game Day

[Dr Zaius]

You might want to sit down for this one, in case the shock causes you to faint. But i am firmly in the camp that the admittedly terrible forward pass try in 10th minute didnt cost the cowboys the game

Bad calls happen and when they happen as early as that, you've got no right to use it as an excuse. The cowboys were down 6-0 with 70 minutes to play from that position. That's a completely normal game script and situation.

As Zaius rightly says, tries being scored off a forward pass is a weekly occurance. Forward passes being missed happens literally every game. It happens. Officials are not going to ever get it 100% correct and nor should they be expected to anymore than you expect your players to play 100% perfect games... mistakes happen. This was a particularly bad call for sure but fortunately it happened with plenty of time and opportunities for the cowboys to win the game... they simply weren't good enough on the night.

Nailed it Botman. I'm tipping that there wouldn't be this level of GH outrage if the teams were reversed.

[GreenMachine]

You can’t sell me on the Cowboys being anything special this season. They overachieved and credit for that, but Parra are far and away above their level.
Parra played like rubbish and still won with barely any ball…
Cows May or may not get another chance like that. Hard to tell as I don’t rate them at all…
This season has been the weakest in terms of competition for the top spot..
Penrith (alone in their own tier) then Parra and the Roosters…
Rest were just making the numbers.
Full strength Melbourne make the list too..

[Finchy]

Utterly non-sensical some of the takes.

Might as well be arguing it’d be fine to start the game at 6-0 to the Eels and that’s fair because the Cowboys still have 80 minutes to be better than the Eels and run down the handicap.

Ridiculous

Garbage. Nobody is saying that.

Except they kind of are. The argument is that it’s ok if a bad refereeing call costs you six points so long as there’s sufficient game time left for you to make up for it.

[Dr Zaius]

Utterly non-sensical some of the takes.

Might as well be arguing it’d be fine to start the game at 6-0 to the Eels and that’s fair because the Cowboys still have 80 minutes to be better than the Eels and run down the handicap.

Ridiculous

Garbage. Nobody is saying that.

Except they kind of are. The argument is that it’s ok if a bad refereeing call costs you six points so long as there’s sufficient game time left for you to make up for it.

No one is saying that bad refereeing is acceptable. It was a clanger, no one is denying that.

[Botman]

Utterly non-sensical some of the takes.

Might as well be arguing it’d be fine to start the game at 6-0 to the Eels and that’s fair because the Cowboys still have 80 minutes to be better than the Eels and run down the handicap.

Ridiculous

Garbage. Nobody is saying that.

Except they kind of are. The argument is that it’s ok if a bad refereeing call costs you six points so long as there’s sufficient game time left for you to make up for it.

Except they absolutely are not.
There are few calls that can be made in the 10th minute of a game that "costs" a team a win... this certainly isnt one of them.

The argument isnt that the call was OK, the argument is the game wasnt won or lost on that call, it was lost on the cowboys inability to capitalise on their significant territory and possession advantages.
The cowboys had more possessions, less errors, more penalties, more run metres, faster play the balls... they had it all except they didnt make the most of it.

[gangrenous]

I’m sorry but that’s crap. It’s exactly what people are saying.

If that happens in the last second of the game. There’s no question - it costs them the game.

It happens earlier in the game suddenly it can’t cost them the game because they have time to make it up.

The argument about whether it happens commonly, or whether it’s acceptable, or what attitudes the coach and players have towards the decision are beside the point.

The point is saying a bad decision can’t have changed the outcome because a team still had time and opportunities is fallacious.

[Dr Zaius]

I’m sorry but that’s crap. It’s exactly what people are saying.

If that happens in the last second of the game. There’s no question - it costs them the game.

It happens earlier in the game suddenly it can’t cost them the game because they have time to make it up.

The argument about whether it happens commonly, or whether it’s acceptable, or what attitudes the coach and players have towards the decision are beside the point.

The point is saying a bad decision can’t have changed the outcome because a team still had time and opportunities is fallacious.

I can't speak for anyone else, and you can't speak for me. You're entitled to your opinion. Please don't tell me what mine is.

[gangrenous]

This one occurred in the first 10 minutes. The cowboys had ample opportunity afterwards to win the game.

So, this isn’t you?

[Dr Zaius]

This one occurred in the first 10 minutes. The cowboys had ample opportunity afterwards to win the game.

So, this isn’t you?

Yeah that's me. Where am I arguing "it’d be fine to start the game at 6-0 to the Eels and that’s fair because the Cowboys still have 80 minutes to be better than the Eels and run down the handicap."? Or even that it was an acceptable error by the referee? Nice selective quoting by the way.

[gangrenous]

Yeah that's me. Where am I arguing "it’d be fine to start the game at 6-0 to the Eels and that’s fair because the Cowboys still have 80 minutes to be better than the Eels and run down the handicap."?

Explain to me the fundamental difference between what you’re saying and me taking your line of reasoning to the extreme?

Or even that it was an acceptable error by the referee?

I explicitly said that arguments about whether it’s acceptable are beside the point.

[gangrenous]

Nice selective quoting by the way.

I quoted what was relevant. What part of the surrounding text changes the meaning?

[Dr Zaius]

Yeah that's me. Where am I arguing "it’d be fine to start the game at 6-0 to the Eels and that’s fair because the Cowboys still have 80 minutes to be better than the Eels and run down the handicap."?

Explain to me the fundamental difference between what you’re saying and me taking your line of reasoning to the extreme?

Or even that it was an acceptable error by the referee?

I explicitly said that arguments about whether it’s acceptable are beside the point.

Botman has articulated it pretty well above. I honestly don't have the energy to argue with an anonymous person with an axe to grind on a football forum. You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. We're obviously not going to agree. Enjoy your weekend.

[gangrenous]

Probably not a bad idea to shadowbox out if you can’t justify your opinion.

[Dr Zaius]

Probably not a bad idea to shadowbox out if you can’t justify your opinion.

OK champ. I could spend all Saturday rehashing opinions that you aren't interested in. Stop being a knob.

[Botman]

I’m sorry but that’s crap. It’s exactly what people are saying.

If that happens in the last second of the game. There’s no question - it costs them the game.

It happens earlier in the game suddenly it can’t cost them the game because they have time to make it up.

The argument about whether it happens commonly, or whether it’s acceptable, or what attitudes the coach and players have towards the decision are beside the point.

The point is saying a bad decision can’t have changed the outcome because a team still had time and opportunities is fallacious.

It’s not crap
Good calls happen, bad calls happen. This is the case in every sport across the globe. Teams sometimes having to overcome those calls is a part of the sport. The calls that cost you games are the ones that decide games, ie the games that a decision occur so late in the contest that the team on the wrong end is denied the opportunity to overcome it

There was a bad call and it resulted in the eels being up 6-0 after 10 minutes. This is not an unusual game script, this is not insurmountable, in fact it's absolutely standard fare, there isnt a player or coach alive who will tell you being down 6-0 after 10 minutes is anything to be concerned about as far as scoreboards go, and there was 87% of game left to decide the game

The way you are carrying on, it’s as if you think if that forward pass is called up the game goes exactly as it did without the 6 points
With 70 minutes left of game time there is absolutely no way to determine what would have or could have happened if they got that call right

Shiiiiid, maybe if they did get that call right, maybe Taumalolo is sent off as he should have and the eels win by 30. We’ll never know. Sometimes you get a favourable call and sometimes you don’t

That’s sport
Admittedly an aspect of sport you’ve proven time and time again you’re unable to grasp

What we do know is there was a bad call and the cowboys had plenty of time and chances to win the game. They weren’t good enough.

[Botman]

Todd Payten: It happened early enough in the game for us to get over it. Like i said, we went into it at 12-all at half and then 20-12 after 55 minutes. So we moved on pretty well.

Meanwhile 2,100 kms away Gangers is channelling the crows fan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hK5Ynj5IRVU

Is there a better summation of Gangers than the fact he's more salty and pissy about a refereeing decision in a game that didnt involve his team than the actual players and coaches of the team that caught the bad call?

*chefs kiss*

[gangrenous]

You completely misunderstand me (no surprises there).

I don’t care that Parramatta won. I don’t care that Cowboys lost. I am losing no sleep over the decision. As you say, it happens in sport. It’s not surprising. Absolutely I’d be pissed if it happened to the Raiders.

All I am saying is this view shared by a few here that because it’s early in the game that it didn’t affect the outcome, is stupid.

Yes there is no way of knowing what would have happened if it’s called forward. But you know what? I suspect that in the multiverse a decent percentage of Parramatta teams that went down the trouser leg of time that didn’t get that six points lost.

From that point on Cowboys took more of their opportunities to score 20 points to 18. Yet somehow you justify the game outcome to yourself by saying they didn’t capitalise on their opportunities. Well, newsflash - nor did Parramatta according to the scoreboard.

So wave it away as part of sport. It’s going to happen. Just don’t sit here and try to sell to the world that bad decisions early in games don’t affect the outcomes.

[gangrenous]

Todd Payten: It happened early enough in the game for us to get over it. Like i said, we went into it at 12-all at half and then 20-12 after 55 minutes. So we moved on pretty well.

He’s a professional. Representing the NRL and making sure his team has the right mentality to overcome in future.

Doesn’t mean it didn’t change the outcome.

[BJ]

At least Payten has been pretty consistent in his pragmatic approach to referee decisions over the last few seasons. So good on him.

Cameron Smith on the other hand in his Channel 9 Commentary was saying much the same as Payten last night in his commentary about these kind of referee decisions can go both ways, despite Smith having a completely different view on some 50/50 decisions after the Storms loss to the Raiders a fortnight ago and his distinguished career history of calling out bad referee decisions that went against his team.

[Botman]

Go and listen to the quote and look at the man as he says it
He's not being professional. He's not gritting through it. He's not swallowing words he wants to say.

The HC of the football team on the rough end of a call in 10th minute is plainly and honestly tell you that it happened early enough for them to overcome it and then explaining that they did in fact over come it. And dismissing the any notion that it cost them the game.

As i said, nothing could be more on brand. Vintage Gangers. I wish i could bottle it, and put in the Vintec and break it open mid December when i miss this

[gangrenous]

It’s like you’re illiterate

[Botman]

i certainly am when it comes to the Bull you frequently peddle around here re: officiating

You can just imagine Gangers in the workplace. Late for a 2pm meeting and earnestly tells his boss it's not his fault, he's late because he caught some traffic at 9am on way into work.

[gangrenous]

It’s really not controversial.

Just because an early bad decision can be overcome, doesn’t mean it cannot change an outcome.

[Botman]

No it’s not controversial
It’s just silly.

You have literally no idea if it actually changed the outcome or not. There is no way of knowing that if that pass was called correctly that the cowboys win the game
Because it was so early in the game that there can be no straight line between event and result.

To say it changed the outcome with such certainty is utterly ridiculous, even for you.

The cowboys lead this game 20-12 with 35 minutes left in the game. The game and its result was entirely in their hands and had they been good enough, they could and would have won the game.

The officials didn’t cost them this game with a bad call in the 10th minute. The cowboys cost themselves the game by not playing well enough in the final 35 minutes with an 8 point lead. Todd Payten knows that as well as anyone.

[gangrenous]

You have literally no idea if it actually changed the outcome or not. There is no way of knowing that if that pass was called correctly that the cowboys win the game
Because it was so early in the game that there can be no straight line between event and result.

Doesn’t contradict what I said.

Edit - actually I’ll correct this. We have “no certainty”, we do not have “no idea”. It obviously didn’t improve the Cowboys chances.

To say it changed the outcome with such certainty is utterly ridiculous, even for you.

I’m sorry, I said this where?

The cowboys lead this game 20-12 with 35 minutes left in the game. The game and its result was entirely in their hands and had they been good enough, they could and would have won the game.

And without the first try maybe they’re up 20-6 and despite letting in a late couple and playing absolutely no differently they win the game.

The funny thing is you’re arguing fiercely that I can’t know how the game turns out, which is actually more aligned to my view of “you can’t say the decision didn’t change the outcome” than it is to “because it was early it didn’t affect the outcome”.

[gerg]

I thought the Moses pass was cancelled out by the try where Moses was being held in the ruck. The standard of refereeing has been pretty ordinary this year but he was ordinary for both sides, especially in the first ten minutes. I thought he missed a few decisions at the start of the game, affecting both sides.

But I still think he is better than Klein. I think the game is in terrible shape if Klein is considered the number 1 ref.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[greeneyed]

Giving the Eels a six point advantage through a howler decision from the officials obviously impacted the outcome. Can we be sure the Cowboys would have won, but for that decision? No. But is it more likely the Cowboys would have won but for the howler. Obviously. A lot more likely.

It’s like the NRL saying, for a bit of fun, let’s start the game at 6-0 in favour of the Eels… but don’t worry, there’s plenty of time for the Cowboys to catch up. It’s all on the Cowboys if they lose. That’s nonsense.

[gangrenous]

[gerg]

A shame that Havili misses tonight, he's had a really good season for the bunnies. He has been playing with all the characteristics that I loved about him here. Good leg drive, quick play the ball and not really getting dominated in the ruck. Also covered well when Cook was out.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[Finchy]

Utterly non-sensical some of the takes.

Might as well be arguing it’d be fine to start the game at 6-0 to the Eels and that’s fair because the Cowboys still have 80 minutes to be better than the Eels and run down the handicap.

Ridiculous

Garbage. Nobody is saying that.

Except they kind of are. The argument is that it’s ok if a bad refereeing call costs you six points so long as there’s sufficient game time left for you to make up for it.

Except they absolutely are not.
There are few calls that can be made in the 10th minute of a game that "costs" a team a win... this certainly isnt one of them.

The argument isnt that the call was OK, the argument is the game wasnt won or lost on that call, it was lost on the cowboys inability to capitalise on their significant territory and possession advantages.
The cowboys had more possessions, less errors, more penalties, more run metres, faster play the balls... they had it all except they didnt make the most of it.

It seems to be semantics then. Change it to "a bad refereeing call that costs you six points hasn't cost you the game if there was sufficient game time left for you to make up for it (but fail to)."

[Dr Zaius]

Why aren't they playing this at WSS?

[greeneyed]

Surely that was a shoulder charge from Leota?

[Dr Zaius]

Surely that was a shoulder charge from Leota?

Could be wrong, but a head clash I think

[greeneyed]

Why aren't they playing this at WSS?

I guess because it only holds 30,000 and Stadium Australia is only 15 minutes away.

[greeneyed]

This makes it a bit interesting. Rabbitohs 12-0.