Maybe Braith has a point?

[rooster_booster]

MAYBE Braith Anasta was on to something on Monday night when he said referees' calls rarely favoured the Roosters. According to Fox Sports Statistics, the Chooks have conceded 579 penalties (or 6.6 per game) since 2009, which makes them the most penalised team in the NRL. They have also received the fewest penalties.

During the same period, they have won 17 penalty counts, but lost a whopping 61. So why are the whistleblowers picking on the Bondi boys? Are they ill-disciplined? Or is there some sort of conspiracy? You be the judge.

From Sports Confidential - Christion Nicolussi in todays DT

[Guest]

Is Nicolussi a roosters fan?

He ran a similar length story yesterday about the roosters being the only team not to have been awarded a friday night game by round 20

[ism22]

That or under Smith we've been the least disciplined team...

[player 1]

which makes them the most penalised team in the NRL. They have also received the fewest penalties.

During the same period, they have won 17 penalty counts, but lost a whopping 61. So why are the whistleblowers picking on the Bondi boys? Are they ill-disciplined? Or is there some sort of conspiracy? You be the judge.

It goes back further than 2009. These dubious honours (most penalized and received the least penalties) go back at least 5 years.

Assuming, and this would be strange given we have had 3 different coaches and many different players over this time, that we simply really have been the most consistently and persistently "ill-disciplined" team for over 5 years, and that we have deserved to be penalized out of games all this time, it still doesn't explain the other statistic:

Why do we receive so few penalties? What is it about the teams we play against that the referees can see so little wrong with their discipline (most notably in not conceding offside or ruck-slowing penalties)? And only when they play against Easts? They may have been caned in the penalties the week before, and the week after, playing us, but against us their discipline becomes saintly.

Souffs have fared the best over the last 5-10 years with the men in pink. This would make sense this year, as they are a top 4 side - why would they need to cheat? And if it continues (they keep winning penalty counts heavily) they have enough cattle to possibly go all the way. But for most of the last 10 years, as we all know, they have been so poor that they deserved relegation to NSW Cup. But all this time they still won the penalty counts most often.

Pass The Ball, I know you are always quick to respond with a superior attitude to these kinds of posts to have a bit of fun at my expense, laughing at what a silly paranoid fool I am. As you are one of the leading voices of reason on the Pen, would you care to explain to me, and any other ignorant fools who may agree with my viewpoint, the likely explanation for Easts RECEIVING the least penalties over more than half a decade of any club?

When you combine the two, most penalized and receiving the least penalties, without several state of origin level players on the side it is a small wonder we haven't got the spoon more than once.

[ism22]

Braith was lucky the refs didn't penalise him for firing up at them last game...

I was angry that he didn't shut up sooner (although his complaint was legit.)

We can either keep blaming the refs or play smarter.

[chook 56]

Braith is obviously offside with the refs because of this.
I just hope that whoever gets the captaincy next has the brains to state their objection & then let it be.
The whistleblower can make or break you...........and don't we bloody well know it?

[rooster_booster]

It just seems to me that crucial refereeing decisions keep having major impacts on our games. Its not fair to say that they have cost us games, but they have definitely cost us opportunities to win games. Think Warriors, think Morts seoncd try angainst Manly. Hell, we dropped our heads on Monday but a couple of calls go our way (which have been talked about ad naseum) and its a different ball game altogether.

I'm a non believer in conspiracies and the like. Maybe Braith's constant whinging has something to do with it. Maybe its the simple fact that NRL referees are some of the worst in all of professional sport.

[Hawkeye]

Has Braith been whingeing to the ref's for the past 5 years, or is it just now a culmination of being fed up with copping it from the refs for so long.
I think those lopsided penalty stats against us even go back to Fitzy's time as captain and I certainly don't recall him being a constant whiner. So maybe now the ref's may be giving it to us because Braith annoys them, but that doesn't explain the hammering we've copped since even Freddies days as coach.
Maybe the ref's "tipsheets" which obvously give us a spray has not been updated for 5 years ?

[Guest]

I've been saying this for years. St George, Broncos, Melb, Manly, Dogs, consistently receive the better end of penalties and calls during games. I dunno how many times I've seen one of these teams get a leg up penalty or six again call coming out of their end. It happens consistently.

If the refs are preparing for games with preconceived notions on which teams get the most penalties than that is biased and akin to cheating. If they aren't doing that then there is no explaination for the consistency with which we have been penalised more than oppossing teams?

Robert Finch and Bill Harrigan have ruined refing in our game by trying to make them inturpreters not enforcers. The ARLC should also disbanned the rules committee immediately because under the rules the Inglis SOO try was a actually try.

Chook.

[Spirit of 66]

When you combine the two, most penalized and receiving the least penalties, without several state of origin level players on the side it is a small wonder we haven't got the spoon more than once.

The attached table gives you something else to think about. It looks at the highest and lowest penalty differentials per season for each NRL team over the last 5 years. Over this time, one would expect teams to have years when they got more penalties than they conceded and years when the reverse applied. For example, in one year, the Tigers had a positive differential of +17 and in another year a negative differential of -15.

Key points:

• All but 4 teams (Vermin, Sharks, Broncos and Steelers) had at least one negative differential year. Broncos and Steelers at least went close having a year when they were only 1 penalty in the positive;
• The Vermin and the Sharks always have healthy positive differentials - the worst the Sharks have had is +15 and the worst the Vermin have had is +10;
• At the other end of the scale, there are teams that have had very bad negative differentials in at least one year, but nearly all have had at least one year when this was reversed - e.g. NZ's worst was -27 but they also had a year of +34;
• The Roosters fall WAY OUTSIDE these statistical trends. Their worst differential was -50 (the largest negative penalty differential of any team since 1980. Their best was -16 (but that is for the 2012 season and only counted games up to the Manly match - at the current rate our differential will be -38 for this year).

This is for the last 5 years. I have data going back further and the picture is not much prettier. There was only one year when the Roosters received more penalties than they conceded - 2004 (+28).

I am not promoting a conspiracy theory here. I am merely presenting a table of data that shows that the normal range of penalty differentials does not apply to the Roosters.

[Guest]

The attached table gives you something else to think about. It looks at the highest and lowest penalty differentials per season for each NRL team over the last 5 years. Over this time, one would expect teams to have years when they got more penalties than they conceded and years when the reverse applied. For example, in one year, the Tigers had a positive differential of +17 and in another year a negative differential of -15.

Key points:

• All but 4 teams (Vermin, Sharks, Broncos and Steelers) had at least one negative differential year. Broncos and Steelers at least went close having a year when they were only 1 penalty in the positive;
• The Vermin and the Sharks always have healthy positive differentials - the worst the Sharks have had is +15 and the worst the Vermin have had is +10;
• At the other end of the scale, there are teams that have had very bad negative differentials in at least one year, but nearly all have had at least one year when this was reversed - e.g. NZ's worst was -27 but they also had a year of +34;
• The Roosters fall WAY OUTSIDE these statistical trends. Their worst differential was -50 (the largest negative penalty differential of any team since 1980. Their best was -16 (but that is for the 2012 season and only counted games up to the Manly match - at the current rate our differential will be -38 for this year).

This is for the last 5 years. I have data going back further and the picture is not much prettier. There was only one year when the Roosters received more penalties than they conceded - 2004 (+28).

I am not promoting a conspiracy theory here. I am merely presenting a table of data that shows that the normal range of penalty differentials does not apply to the Roosters.

taking 2012 out of the equation what was our best year?

[elo]

Freddy on the Sunday Footy show was going on about how when he was coach and he would read the referees boss tip sheets and they were loaded with comments against us and it lead the referees to having a pre-determined mind set going into our matches meaning if they saw any slight infringement it would immediately called a penalty against us.

We are completely ****ed under the current referees as this mentality is ingrained in them now.

[player 1]

We can either keep blaming the refs or play smarter.

LOL.

I like your posts and I believe you are smart.

So tell me, what smart moves do we need to make to get the refs to penalize our opposition more often?

(I've given up on the prospect of them actually penalizing us less often - changing coaches 3 times and most of our players over 5 years has made no difference to this guaranteed constant).

[Guest]

I thought 2010 gf already proved there was a conspiracy?

[player 1]

Freddy on the Sunday Footy show was going on about how when he was coach and he would read the referees boss tip sheets and they were loaded with comments against us and it lead the referees to having a pre-determined mind set going into our matches meaning if they saw any slight infringement it would immediately called a penalty against us.

We are completely ****ed under the current referees as this mentality is ingrained in them now.

BIG LOL!!

Referees tip sheets!! So there we have it. They are actually coached to deliberately NOT be impartial.

This is preposterous beyond comprehension.

The thought that with 2 on field referees and 2 touch judges, plus a video referee, the officials are INSTRUCTED not to take the field and call the game as it happens, but to take the field with the pre-conceived conviction that certain teams and certain players are going to infringe, and that the officials will watch these individuals more closely and penalize them more readily than other teams and their players.

This, in my opinion, could be used as a perfect example to explain to someone the meaning of the word BIAS.

It is akin to a tennis umpire targeting a certain player with the preconceived notion that any ball that looks close to the line is probably out rather than in - it's on my umpire's tipsheet after all. Or a baseball umpire - that pitch was on the border-line between a stike and a ball - oh look here, it says on my tip sheet this pitcher tries to get batters to swing at off-centre pitches - "ball one".

This is utterly ****ed, and is a perfect explanation for what has been going on. This NEEDS to be drawn to our club's attention. Continuing to cop it up the arse has not and will not get these cheating turds to let up.