Garth Brennan gets a tuggie from Bernard Sutton

[TheLoneRooster]

Why would they say it was an obstruction, when not even our players thought it was? Maybe our players don’t actually know the rules either.

Because they almost always check tries for obstruction these days. And yes, not only our players, but others don't know the rules, including most league supporters. The Roosters have copped plenty of rough calls over the years (the 2010 GF had plenty all by itself) and have rarely received a "tuggie" from the refs boss at the time. Putting that aside, the rules were applied correctly in the SOS try so if the shoe were on the other foot, Roosters supporters would have to wear it and grumble about it.

[Mickie Lane]

That try that was awarded to SOS was the biggest stuff up that I have ever seen.
No way in the wide world was that a try & if the shoe was on the other foot & the Titans were awarded that try & won the game I would be livid.

[Bmw06i]

Another Ref blunder in the sharks raiders game.
Awarded a try when hit it was a clear knock on.

[Parkway_Drive]

That try that was awarded to SOS was the biggest stuff up that I have ever seen.
No way in the wide world was that a try & if the shoe was on the other foot & the Titans were awarded that try & won the game I would be livid.

Still not as bad as Brett Morris crossing the touchline shortly before the Dragons scoring their first try in the 2010 GF but I get what you are saying.

[milanja]

Another Ref blunder in the sharks raiders game.
Awarded a try when hit it was a clear knock on.

Not sure how video ref overturns such an inconclusive touch, when on field was no try.

bunker is starting to ruin more games than not these days.

[milanja]

Wow what a stinker again, fair enough if they thought it was forward, but how no penalty for off side??

ricky presser should be good.

[Bmw06i]

Another blunder.
Not even close to a forward pass.

NRL need to take some action next year about the current REF BOSS.

[Spirit of 66]

Apparently the rationale for why the SOS try was actually a knock on, even though after looking at it multiple times I personally cannot ever see the ball being propelled forward off his hands, is this: If any part of the goal post is facing towards the east, forward motion off the post is a roosters knock on.

This dissenting view escaped my attention at the time:

https://www.theroar.com.au/2018/07/1...oss-got-wrong/

[player 1]

This dissenting view escaped my attention at the time:

https://www.theroar.com.au/2018/07/1...oss-got-wrong/

I just looked at the replay again, as I have many times, and there is simply never a moment where the ball is directly propelled forward from his arm onto the ground.

But people will, for their own varying personal reasons, believe what they want to see.

[Spirit of 66]

I just looked at the replay again, as I have many times, and there is simply never a moment where the ball is directly propelled forward from his arm onto the ground.

But people will, for their own varying personal reasons, believe what they want to see.

It’s also a good example of how media coverage and social media comments create “the truth”. I am surprised that Darren Lockyer’s comments questioning Radley’s try on the weekend didn’t generate a similar frenzy. He said Radley deliberately knocked the ball forward to evade the defence.

[player 1]

It’s also a good example of how media coverage and social media comments create “the truth”. I am surprised that Darren Lockyer’s comments questioning Radley’s try on the weekend didn’t generate a similar frenzy. He said Radley deliberately knocked the ball forward to evade the defence.

Yeah me too. It did cost the Eagles the game after all - a "sliding doors moment", as Garth Brennan described the SOS decision.

[bondi.boy]

I've read the NRL website article and I am touched that Garth and Bernard were able to bond over their shared butt hurt that the roosters somehow got the benefit of a single decision going their way.

Was nice that Bernard made a special phone call to Garth to apologise profusely for the bungle. Also reassuring that the 2 match officials involved have been publicly shamed, blamed and punished. This is important as it sends a clear message to referees who in future may be considering making a decision that favours the roosters - namely, you will pay a heavy price and be publicly humiliated.

Apparently the rationale for why the SOS try was actually a knock on, even though after looking at it multiple times I personally cannot ever see the ball being propelled forward off his hands, is this: If any part of the goal post is facing towards the east, forward motion off the post is a roosters knock on.

Extra marks to Bernard Sutton for publicly going on the record that the other roosters try probably came off a forward pass, and even though he can't be 100% certain it was forward, it was still worthwhile making a statement that this too may have very possibly been another bungle that unfairly benefited the roosters.

The game is in good hands.

Comedy at its best.
Yes, can't be having the Roosters benefit from a decision.

[eddie]

That try that was awarded to SOS was the biggest stuff up that I have ever seen.
No way in the wide world was that a try & if the shoe was on the other foot & the Titans were awarded that try & won the game I would be livid.

"biggest stuff up ever" ???
I can think of a lot worse.
Looked to me like SOS knocked the ball back into the goalpost, but anyway it's far from clear as all the critics are making out. 50/50 in my books.