voicefromthehill said:
I disagree, I don't believe it was the difference, I count three tries to the roosters that were scored fair and square , so we are left with even scores, that then means we are then left with hypotheticals so at best it is level scores Not so simples.
It is what it is, we can't undo it. I am curious to see if any of the people screaming "cheat" contributed to he derision of Henry and Thurston.....
You are right in that all we have to work with is hypotheticals. Those bad calls were so regular and influential it is impossible to know what the game would have been like without them.
If the refs ruled that Pearce knocked on early in the match would we have scored?
If the touchie ruled the ball came off Jennings foot and we had a crack at their line just before half time would we have scored?
If the refs ruled Jennings obstructed Lyon and gave us a penalty would we have scored, having a whole set of 6 right on their line (instead they got the try which put them in the lead, so that's a possible 12 point turnaround)?
If we weren't so tired from making so many extra tackles would we have been able to stop SBW's break, or stop Jennings' try?
We will never know the answer to any of these questions (and dozens more), but you would have to it more likely than not that we would have converted at least 1 of the opportunities that were taken away from us.
As the stats show we made less errors, had a higher completion rate and had less missed tackles my view is that we would have won if not for the poor decisions. To be honest I think we would have had it wrapped up by half time.
Souths must be spewing that Hayne wasn't the ref for our match against them last week. It is another hypothetical, but I am sure that if he was the ref we would have lost so I suppose on 1 view we should count ourselves lucky.