Post Match Bulldogs v Warriors - [Round 23, 2025]

[CWC]

So what caused our defense to meltdown? Was it Marata gliding issues? TMM coming off was such a shame, attack was done after that, CHT is a specialized supporting character, losing both eyes up 7s is way too much

Wasn’t good to keep Healey on the bench for so long.

 

[Wrighty]

I think they lost it alright. They dropped lip because of the bs calls. And couldn't get back into the game. Mentally weak this team. But, Unlike some on here. I believe Adam Gee played a huge part in our loss. The cunt was diabolical! The funny thing is, Some of the posters saying after the game that said Gee was fine. Was blowing up about him being a cheat during the game lol. Make it make sense.

The call where the Warriors did seem to drop their lips was with the scores tied 2-2 Taine did a short drop out which he kicked too far and for "REASONS" Adam Gee called it a penalty instead of a tap restart when those are supposed to be tap restarts.
Kikau's try also looked suss. And suddenly it was 10-2. Against a team we are probably only 2-4 points better than on our best day.

Anyway all that aside. I think Webster handed it really well. So well in fact that I think we will get better calls next week. To better days ahead.

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

The call where the Warriors did seem to drop their lips was with the scores tied 2-2 Taine did a short drop out which he kicked too far and for "REASONS" Adam Gee called it a penalty instead of a tap restart when those are supposed to be tap restarts.
Kikau's try also looked suss. And suddenly it was 10-2. Against a team we are probably only 2-4 points better than on our best day.

Anyway all that aside. I think Webster handed it really well. So well in fact that I think we will get better calls next week. To better days ahead.

Did Kikau promote the ball at all to score the try or was it momentum that got him across the line? I think clearly momentum.

 

[John Nick]

Did Kikau promote the ball at all to score the try or was it momentum that got him across the line? I think clearly momentum.

Yeah Mr B. We would all be really pissed if that was taken off us.

 

[PhilsySH35]

No that’s not how I saw it at all. Theres always 50/50 calls & even 40/60 calls that go against you at times, but you get the other side of them as well just as often. Theres no clear bias from Gee, just confirmation bias from everyone that went into the game seeking that ‘ref is against us’ narrative. Check out the pre game chat - plenty of you talked yourselves into before the game even began.

yep that's me, rather this, cos I know everyone is against us especially them! - we shall not be moved - wahz can do no wrong!

 

[Damo]

Did Kikau promote the ball at all to score the try or was it momentum that got him across the line? I think clearly momentum.

It looked awfully similar to Waydes disallowed try a few weeks back, but I thought that should have been given also.

By the letter of the law it looked to me like Kikau promoted it like Egan did.

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

It looked awfully similar to Waydes disallowed try a few weeks back, but I thought that should have been given also.

By the letter of the law it looked to me like Kikau promoted it like Egan did.

I’d like to see the two again because I remember thinking with Egan we’d be lucky to get that, but with Kikau I didn’t think his arm moved at all.

 

[Matiunz]

I’d like to see the two again because I remember thinking with Egan we’d be lucky to get that, but with Kikau I didn’t think his arm moved at all.

If kikau did no action at all momentum would have gotten him over the line easily, thing is though he does make a second action after the ball and arm were on the ground. He didn’t need to do it to score but the point is he did an extra action, technicality perhaps but the speed in which it was try confirmed compared to the forensic looks some other teams tries get looked at raises eyebrows at minimum

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

If kikau did no action at all momentum would have gotten him over the line easily, thing is though he does make a second action after the ball and arm were on the ground. He didn’t need to do it to score but the point is he did an extra action, technicality perhaps but the speed in which it was try confirmed compared to the forensic looks some other teams tries get looked at raises eyebrows at minimum

Just rewatched it and yeah the momentum clearly gets him across the line - in which case it can’t be deemed a double movement.

 

[Ref]

It looked awfully similar to Waydes disallowed try a few weeks back, but I thought that should have been given also.

By the letter of the law it looked to me like Kikau promoted it like Egan did.

I would have awarded them both.

 

[Matiunz]

Just rewatched it and yeah the momentum clearly gets him across the line - in which case it can’t be deemed a double movement.

I wondered on the technicality of he promoted it before he’d crossed the line which would be the infringement- irony being he didn’t have to

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

I wondered on the technicality of he promoted it before he’d crossed the line which would be the infringement- irony being he didn’t have to

Reading the rules I think it doesn’t matter if a player promotes it if momentum would have carried him there anyway, which it did. So we can cross that one off the aggrieved fan list.

 

[Inruin]

I'm firmly in the camp of there is no grand conspiracy.

There were two decisions which I was scratching my head over though in the Dogs game - and they may very well be correct decisions to the letter of the law.

1. the penalty for the line drop out not being contestable. Didn't even know that was a rule. In my opinion you either penalise every missed kick restart or you penalise none and its a handover play the ball. If it doesn't go ten meters its not contestable. If it goes out on the full anytime its not contestable. I've seen some go out behind the goal line which is the same distance TT's drop kick went out on the full but the other way. Just a weird one for me.

2. the mitigating he dropped so then the tacklers arm hit him in the head so no penalty. Falling attacking player has not been a mitigating factor all season. In fact some were so low to the ground that there was no where else to tackle him.

The main issue, as it has been all season and previous ones, is interpretation and consistency of rulings.

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

I'm firmly in the camp of there is no grand conspiracy.

There were two decisions which I was scratching my head over though in the Dogs game - and they may very well be correct decisions to the letter of the law.

1. the penalty for the line drop out not being contestable. Didn't even know that was a rule. In my opinion you either penalise every missed kick restart or you penalise none and its a handover play the ball. If it doesn't go ten meters its not contestable. If it goes out on the full anytime its not contestable. I've seen some go out behind the goal line which is the same distance TT's drop kick went out on the full but the other way. Just a weird one for me.

2. the mitigating he dropped so then the tacklers arm hit him in the head so no penalty. Falling attacking player has not been a mitigating factor all season. In fact some were so low to the ground that there was no where else to tackle him.

The main issue, as it has been all season and previous ones, is interpretation and consistency of rulings.

The line drop out has to be contestable and it definitely wasn’t - our players were sprinting for it & were prob still 10 metres from it when it went over the touch line. So again, correct decision from the ref. Re ducking into the tackle, that’s a contentious one, those can go either way.

 

[tajhay]

Anyone find it strange that Boyd after playing in the NSW cup, joined the first grade team and was on the team bus and came out with the first grade squad into the stadium? Did Webster think that he was still playing charades with the team lineup after he had played in the earlier game?

What was our plan for this game in the wet running with 2 5/8s? We certainly didnt see anything different (except being without a kicker) whilst both halves were on the field for quarter of the match.

 

[Matiunz]

I'm firmly in the camp of there is no grand conspiracy.

There were two decisions which I was scratching my head over though in the Dogs game - and they may very well be correct decisions to the letter of the law.

1. the penalty for the line drop out not being contestable. Didn't even know that was a rule. In my opinion you either penalise every missed kick restart or you penalise none and its a handover play the ball. If it doesn't go ten meters its not contestable. If it goes out on the full anytime its not contestable. I've seen some go out behind the goal line which is the same distance TT's drop kick went out on the full but the other way. Just a weird one for me.

2. the mitigating he dropped so then the tacklers arm hit him in the head so no penalty. Falling attacking player has not been a mitigating factor all season. In fact some were so low to the ground that there was no where else to tackle him.

The main issue, as it has been all season and previous ones, is interpretation and consistency of rulings.

The Shepard call was another shocker- when does the defending team ever get penalised for that? The Crichton push when he spent the whole night getting in the way of the ptb was also questionable. In isolation each one is forgivable but when it’s numerous in a single game is when it starts to raise eyebrows

 

[Matiunz]

Anyone find it strange that Boyd after playing in the NSW cup, joined the first grade team and was on the team bus and came out with the first grade squad into the stadium? Did Webster think that he was still playing charades with the team lineup after he had played in the earlier game?

What was our plan for this game in the wet running with 2 5/8s? We certainly didnt see anything different (except being without a kicker) whilst both halves were on the field for quarter of the match.

I’m wondering if there was a Boyd indiscretion that Webby is protecting him from - otherwise seems extremely odd behaviour

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Which 50/50 decisions went our way?

I can count about 6 that went against us, not even counting the 6/0 six again count until the last 5 minutes.

66% possession at half time killed the game as it means we had done the equivalent of 60 minutes defence at half time. Game over. Let alone the terrible conditions and late night.

I felt Gee was annoyed at DWZ and then the challenge going against him and thumped us to exhaustion for the rest of the half.

The Bulldogs were the better team and still would have won it but a ref destroying the game wrecks the event for the Bulldogs fans as well. It should have been 2 top 4 teams where the ref put the whistle away and let the teams decide the winner.

(And while this ref destroyed the contest, I’ve felt most games have been fairly even this year with the 50/50 calls and this one sticks out as horrendous)

 

[Bay39er]

Add in CNK being inside the 10 pen early in the game when the wide shot clearly showed he wasn’t- the one which had Brandy saying how good Gee was!!

 

[peewee]

Add in CNK being inside the 10 pen early in the game when the wide shot clearly showed he wasn’t- the one which had Brandy saying how good Gee was!!

Brandy........he's a 100% fuckwit anyway
He obviously didn't enjoy his time at the Warriors