did uncle nick call on gus in the PR war with the refs

[Spirit of 66]

That's better! See you're coming along now! I have argued from the start that there will be bias and prejudice involved. Referees are human too, they grew up supporting a team and probably still support a team. They will have read the newspaper articles and gossip columns that say the Roosters are the 'glamour club' the 'transit lounge' the most 'ill discipline team' in the comp. They are human, they aren't robots.

So are members of the police, judiciary and government. One hopes that they don't bring their personal prejudices and biases to their jobs, but, if they do, you would hope that someone would point it out and not just say "forget about it - it's human nature."

[Guest]

So are members of the police, judiciary and government. One hopes that they don't bring their personal prejudices and biases to their jobs, but, if they do, you would hope that someone would point it out and not just say "forget about it - it's human nature."

No they don't, they have solid, confirmed evidence piled against them until a case can be filed and a charge laid. eg Craig Thompson

Referees won't be charged of corruption simply because a bunch of Sydney Roosters fans cried foul after they conceded a few penalties.

[The Rooster Oracle]

As I have no evidence of Cummins receiving personal or financial gain, I withdraw the use of the word "corrupt". (One could argue that the NRL stands to benefit financially by influencing the outcome of games - e.g. ensuring key markets like Brisbane are kept happy - but that's another matter.)

Here are some other words that might be more appropriate:

BIAS - "inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair." I believe this is what Trent was intimating on Friday night.

PREJUDICE - "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience". Kegs agrees with this point as he describes it in his post.

FAVOURITISM - "the practice of giving unfair preferential treatment to one person or group at the expense of another". Again, this is what Trent was implying on Friday.

So, OK Kegs. I agree that the game or its referees are not corrupt, or at least we have no evidence that they are.

All is well. Move on. Nothing to see here.

Just bias, prejudice and favouritism.

All great posts on here by you SO66 and Mr Walker!!

Just a word of advice for you both and everyone else, don't waste your time trying to reason with the DC, it is impossible to do so as he is nothing more than a total DC!! The amount of times that he contradicts himself on here is for all to see and is bloody hilarious!!

This bias bull$hit has been going on for so long now, as pointed out by Robbo and Freddy today on the Sunday footy show, and yet the DC still doesn't get it!! But hey, what else would you expect from a complete and utter DC??

[Guest]

All great posts on here by you SO66 and Mr Walker!!

Just a word of advice for you both and everyone else, don't waste your time trying to reason with the DC, it is impossible to do so as he is nothing more than a total DC!! The amount of times that he contradicts himself on here is for all to see and is bloody hilarious!!

This bias bull$hit has been going on for so long now, as pointed out by Robbo and Freddy today on the Sunday footy show, and yet the DC still doesn't get it!! But hey, what else would you expect from a complete and utter DC??

Oracle, would you like to point out exactly how the NRL has been convicted of corruption? Can you tell me how Sean Garlick remains on the MRC even though he is obviously corrupt? Can you tell me why Souths are still in the comp even though they so clearly paid everyone to win the Grand Final last year?

[stephenj]

ok i withdraw my allegations of corruption and bias against certain whistle happy referees , but for those fans unable to accept that this situation can occure the name darcy lawler a once top referee was indeed convicrted for that crime before my time but im told it was something to do with st george pre merge days?

[Spirit of 66]

No they don't, they have solid, confirmed evidence piled against them until a case can be filed and a charge laid. eg Craig Thompson

Referees won't be charged of corruption simply because a bunch of Sydney Roosters fans cried foul after they conceded a few penalties.

I think the discussion has jumped around a bit here, Kegs. To recap:

1. I conceded that, without evidence, the word corruption was inappropriate.
2. We then seemed to agree that bias, prejudice and favouritism were more appropriate words.
3. You then seemed to say that we should accept this from referees because they were only human.
4. I pointed out that we wouldn't accept that from the police, judiciary or government.
5. You then suggested that the police, judiciary and government are never guilty of bias, prejudice and favouritism.

That may be the case, but you missed the most important point - if there WERE indications of bias, prejudice or favouritism, would you not feel obliged to say something? For example, there is a brawl at a pub in Brookvale involving 22 people. 11 are wearing Roosters jerseys and 11 are wearing Manly jerseys. The police arrest and charge all 11 Roosters and only 2 Manly supporters.

You wouldn't say "Oh, that's only human nature. Fair enough." Would you?

[Salvatori Grubber]

That post was a cracker So66, but the last analogy was quite the straw man.

[JohnLawrence]

give the Roosters 2 penalties that 12 chances with the ball and I reckon there's a big chance of scoring with that talent in our side

[Guest]

I think the discussion has jumped around a bit here, Kegs. To recap:

1. I conceded that, without evidence, the word corruption was inappropriate.
2. We then seemed to agree that bias, prejudice and favouritism were more appropriate words.
3. You then seemed to say that we should accept this from referees because they were only human.
4. I pointed out that we wouldn't accept that from the police, judiciary or government.
5. You then suggested that the police, judiciary and government are never guilty of bias, prejudice and favouritism.

That may be the case, but you missed the most important point - if there WERE indications of bias, prejudice or favouritism, would you not feel obliged to say something? For example, there is a brawl at a pub in Brookvale involving 22 people. 11 are wearing Roosters jerseys and 11 are wearing Manly jerseys. The police arrest and charge all 11 Roosters and only 2 Manly supporters.

You wouldn't say "Oh, that's only human nature. Fair enough." Would you?

So66 I'm enjoying this debate and I'll give you credit for way you are going about this.

If there were indications of bias, prejudice or favouritism, then yes, i would fell obliged to say something.

The main point i have been arguing right from Oracle's first ever tirade is that there is no point getting so worked up over this alleged 'corruption' when not a single iota of evidence has been put forward or looked at. We can scream bias, prejudice and favouritsm all we like, the fact of the matter is these fall under human nature and cannot be used against them.

For example, if you were to become an NRL referee tomorrow, and referee next weekends Roosters game. There is no way you would be able to go the whole 80 minutes without making even the slightest call in the Roosters favour.

In terms of your analogy, whilst funny, it's largely irrelevant.

[Spirit of 66]

So66 I'm enjoying this debate and I'll give you credit for way you are going about this.

If there were indications of bias, prejudice or favouritism, then yes, i would fell obliged to say something.

The main point i have been arguing right from Oracle's first ever tirade is that there is no point getting so worked up over this alleged 'corruption' when not a single iota of evidence has been put forward or looked at. We can scream bias, prejudice and favouritsm all we like, the fact of the matter is these fall under human nature and cannot be used against them.

For example, if you were to become an NRL referee tomorrow, and referee next weekends Roosters game. There is no way you would be able to go the whole 80 minutes without making even the slightest call in the Roosters favour.

In terms of your analogy, whilst funny, it's largely irrelevant.

If I were made an NRL referee, in every game I'd give the Roosters all the penalties and two or three penalty tries a game. I'd sin bin opposition players for having stupid hairstyles and send them off for poor personal hygiene.

I think my refereeing career would then come to an abrupt halt - and all because some paranoid people might say I was biased.

I would just like Ben Cummins career to come to a similar end and for a similar reason. Even accepting your proposition that we are all subject to inherent prejudices and biases, referees need to rise above such things and, if anything, over-compensate in the opposite direction - that is, give the benefit of the doubt to the people you know you hate. Instead, as Coach Robinson described it, we had the referee penalise one team and warn the other for the same offence.

We'll continue this conversation in the Brookvale Police lock up...

[Spirit of 66]

That post was a cracker So66, but the last analogy was quite the straw man.

Maybe, but satirical exaggeration has its place in arguments. Swift's "A Modest Proposal", published in 1729, is a classic example. This work developed a well reasoned position on how to prevent the children of poor people from being a burden on society. Step by step, Swift builds his logical case until the reader finally realises that the solution he is "proposing" is to sell the children to the rich as food.

(Sorry Moderator - wrong forum. I thought this was the 18th Century satirical literature forum. My mistake.)

[Salvatori Grubber]

Reading that post in a Mitchell Pearce voice is fun.

[Salvatori Grubber]

But as it goes, yer man's idea is a good one, satirical or otherwise, and I imagine Gina Reinhart would wholeheartedly endorse such policies.

[Spirit of 66]

But as it goes, yer man's idea is a good one, satirical or otherwise, and I imagine Gina Reinhart would wholeheartedly endorse such policies.

Dame Gina to you.

[elo]

I read the article, Gus didn't help us at all really. Him saying the Guerra penalty on DCE was justified is hilarious, the pocket referee is literally screaming out that DCE is holding Guerra down and Cummins just completely ignores him and falls for the jirating turkey routine, he did this again when Cordner clearly makes contact with the hips as 3rd man which is fine, the pocket referee says contact fine yet Cummins blows yet another bullshit penalty for 3rd man initiating contact below the knees.

Cummins was a man on a mission on Friday night, period.