News Trying to bite my tongue’: Ciraldo wants ‘clarity’ after contentious calls cruel Dogs

[wendog33]

Just been listening to ABC Grandstand. Andrew Voss - no friend of the Dogs - reckons Nikora should have been sent off for his hit on Kickau.

Why do I think we'll have a player sent off next week for a far less infringement?

Ref payback?

 

[Howie B]

Just been listening to ABC Grandstand. Andrew Voss - no friend of the Dogs - reckons Nikora should have been sent off for his hit on Kickau.

Why do I think we'll have a player sent off next week for a far less infringement?

If Kikau stays down he gets sent

 

[InGusWeTrust]

It may have been technically justified but was an extremely rough decision. Let me illustrate…

Burton makes a linebreak and passes to Kikau



Trindall runs behind ref tracking Burton’s run



Then he turns as Kikau gets the ball



Even marginally being affected by the ref he has a clear shot at Kikau with Viliame over a metre still from the tryline

 

[InGusWeTrust]

If you study that last frame Trindall looks to be planted, shitting himself at the oncoming freight train lol

 

[J_B]

Trindall shouldn't be running behind the ref anyway , He put himself in that position and shouldn't be rewarded for it

 

[craigo]

I'll take that over sexton letting his opposite centre score 5 tries down his side

Dogs get 5 tries scored on them either way.

 

[Philistine]

How on earth has this discussion descended into an argument about obstruction? If an attacking player, not in possession of the ball, gets in the way of a defender and prevents him from doing his job - that is obstruction! If a referee gets in the way of a defender, that is the defender's misfortune. The Dogs had zero control or influence on where or how the referee decided to position himself. They did absolutely nothing wrong, and yet they were penalized by having a perfectly good try disallowed. In what parallel universe is this a fair and just outcome?

 

[wendog33]

Trindall shouldn't be running behind the ref anyway , He put himself in that position and shouldn't be rewarded for it

Clear cut. Player Trindall made the decision to run behind the ref.

Look at all the space we had right up to the goalposts...not much Sharks defence. A lot of other teams would have had a pass option for Kiks. Pity it wasn't on offer for us so there would have been no doubt about the try. Not to be. Hope CC works on backing up the ball carrier this week.

 

[Doogie]

Ok let’s play it this way if trindall was blocked by the post would it be obstruction?
No player will just stand there on the try line.

Well, a post doesn't move. And decoy runners get in the way all the time. Hence obstruction became the buzzword of the 21st century.

It had to be a no try but the referee shouldn't be standing where he was.

Now that i 1000% agree with.

 

[Doogie]

The way I read that is "Contact between a defender (in this case Trindall) and the referee (Ziggy)MAY NOT constitute a mutual infringement" Note may not has this dictionary explanation..........
What is the meaning of may not?
May not means an absolute prohibition. May not means to prohibit from doing something.
Reading it along those lines means it cannot be a mutual infringement in the case of a defender and referee coming together....
As you pointed out the clause which read EXCEPT where section 6 3 E applies. does not apply in any way because it is a defender.....

May not is may not. Guess the idea is if an attacker runs into the ref, they obviously don't want to so its MI. If a defender does it, he may be stooging for a decision, so its decided on the basis of whether the defender was impeded.

And tbf - I always wondered why guys like Slater with the ball got away with using the ref as a bit of a shepherd from time to time. As an attacker, you can get away with quite a bit that way.

 

[Doogie]

Clear cut. Player Trindall made the decision to run behind the ref.

Look at all the space we had right up to the goalposts...not much Sharks defence. A lot of other teams would have had a pass option for Kiks. Pity it wasn't on offer for us so there would have been no doubt about the try. Not to be. Hope CC works on backing up the ball carrier this week.

Nah. Now if Kiks ran straight at him and Trindall decided to slide to his left into the ref, fair play. Kiks ran right so Trindall has to run left. And there is a ref there.

You might think he did it deliberately. I don't and if he did, fair play. As @bradyk said, the ref should not have been there.

 

[wendog33]

Nah. Now if Kiks ran straight at him and Trindall decided to slide to his left into the ref, fair play. Kiks ran right so Trindall has to run left. And there is a ref there.

You might think he did it deliberately. I don't and if he did, fair play. As @bradyk said, the ref should not have been there.

Trindall ran right...behind the ref

 

[Doogie]

Trindall ran right...behind the ref

who was moving back into the in goal at the time.

 

[wendog33]

who was moving back into the in goal at the time.

Plenty of time to come forward to meet the runner

 

[Doogie]

Plenty of time to come forward to meet the runner

Surprised in all that time he didn't run over to the trainer and get a drink while he was there.

We need a shake head emoji.

 

[wendog33]

Surprised in all that time he didn't run over to the trainer and get a drink while he was there.

We need a shake head emoji.

Just havin a bit of fun Doges. It's ok.

 

[King Gus]

Well, a post doesn't move. And decoy runners get in the way all the time. Hence obstruction became the buzzword of the 21st century.

Now that i 1000% agree with.

I’m using the pole as an example same as the ref wasn’t meant to be there.

 

[Doogie]

I’m using the pole as an example same as the ref wasn’t meant to be there.

The pole wasn't meant to be there? How do we kick goals then?

The rules basically say that if the ref gets caught like that in that circumstance, its the same as obstruction. And if that was a Dogs player instead, all anyone is looking at is whether they had lost an opportunity to make the tackle. On that basis, the decision is a no brainer.

Is the decision a suck decision. Yes. What I'm laughing about is the:
- Nikora non send off and the
- forward passes in just about every set from the Sharks of which non were called
had a bigger impact on the result than this and yet, here we are still talking about this decision and the kicking try. Go figure.

 

[Cappuccino]

lol @ Fitzgibbons view of the Kikau “no try”

“I’d rather defend it better, but he got obstructed. How does he not? If he doesn’t get stopped then he runs forward and makes the tackle five metres before the try line,”

I had to laugh at some of the takes today from commentators about us. Some golden ones in there especially from Scrotum Neck and Darryl Brohman

 

[King Gus]

The pole wasn't meant to be there? How do we kick goals then?

The rules basically say that if the ref gets caught like that in that circumstance, its the same as obstruction. And if that was a Dogs player instead, all anyone is looking at is whether they had lost an opportunity to make the tackle. On that basis, the decision is a no brainer.

Is the decision a suck decision. Yes. What I'm laughing about is the:
- Nikora non send off and the
- forward passes in just about every set from the Sharks of which non were called
had a bigger impact on the result than this and yet, here we are still talking about this decision and the kicking try. Go figure.

Your funny the ref isn’t meant to be there , when was the last time you saw a disallowed try cause the ref was there?