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

[Doogie]

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?

Haven't for quite a while but is what it is. Now if you want to argue the ref fckd up - fair play. But he did. So the bunk decides whether the player was obstructed. He was and they did. So no try.

This is not hard. If the shoe was on the other foot and the try was given you'd be losing your shit more than now. Is what it is.

 

[King Gus]

Haven't for quite a while but is what it is. Now if you want to argue the ref fckd up - fair play. But he did. So the bunk decides whether the player was obstructed. He was and they did. So no try.

This is not hard. If the shoe was on the other foot and the try was given you'd be losing your shit more than now. Is what it is.

Fair enough ref fucked up and shouldn’t of been there.

 

[ILiveForDib]

We got screwed multiple times last year and Ciraldo didn’t bat an eye. Speaks volumes on his impression of the side this year no point highlighting crap officiating when your bottom 4 fodder. We’re vastly improved going toe to toe with a Cronulla side who we’re going full throttle. CC thinks we’re good enough cause we’ve copped much worse in his time here.

 

[Harry Oz]

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

Burton makes a linebreak and passes to Kikau

View attachment 104201

Trindall runs behind ref tracking Burton’s run

View attachment 104202

Then he turns as Kikau gets the ball

View attachment 104203

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

View attachment 104204

The position of the referee was visible to Trindall the whole time.
Trindall made his own decision where to position himself as the attack unfolded and has to take some responsibility for ending up on the wrong side of the ref.
Trindall also had the opportunity to step forward past the referee and then across, but instead immediately pushed to his left, into the referee.
Actually looked to me like Trindall was playing for the interference by trying to push the referee out of the way rather than stepping on front of him.
A player pushes a referee out of the way and gets a try disallowed?
Just seems like the video ref could only view the footage from one perspective.
Which was Cronulla's.

 

[Philistine]

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?

There is nothing in the rule book to cover what went down Friday night. The passage that @Doogie quoted is irrelevant as it is meant to cover restarts when the game has stopped and neither side is responsible for the stoppage. This time the game stopped when a try was scored, and the ref sent it upstairs as a try! If the referee wasn't happy about his own involvement, he should have stopped the game before Kikau scored. The simple fact is they were making up the rules as they went along, and, if the same thing happens next week to two different teams, the decision will be different.

 

[LordSidious66]

We got screwed multiple times last year and Ciraldo didn’t bat an eye. Speaks volumes on his impression of the side this year no point highlighting crap officiating when your bottom 4 fodder. We’re vastly improved going toe to toe with a Cronulla side who we’re going full throttle. CC thinks we’re good enough cause we’ve copped much worse in his time here.

Let's hope his callout works in our favour.


Sent from my SM-A235F using Tapatalk

 

[Doogie]

There is nothing in the rule book to cover what went down Friday night. The passage that @Doogie quoted is irrelevant as it is meant to cover restarts when the game has stopped and neither side is responsible for the stoppage. This time the game stopped when a try was scored, and the ref sent it upstairs as a try! If the referee wasn't happy about his own involvement, he should have stopped the game before Kikau scored. The simple fact is they were making up the rules as they went along, and, if the same thing happens next week to two different teams, the decision will be different.

Cover restarts?

The ref got in the way of the game prior to the 'try'. Thats not in the laws of the game and it irregularly affected the match. Straight from the international rules, the NRL points to this. Exactly the same as some random punter jumped out of the crowd and tackled the last defender. Thats not in the laws either.

So the bunker asked whether it irregularly affected the game. They decided it did. And thats it.

But hey. Disagree with me, the NRL and 99% of the internet. We could be all wrong.

 

[Magic Burton]

The refereeing was disgraceful last night. We were the better team. Scoreboard doesn't show it.

Ciraldo didn't go hard enough IMO. Gould on his Twitter has only posted about Isaah Yeo kick and Junior Results since the game.

To achieve results you need to really attack them. A fine is a very good investment.

Warriors major sponsor went at them last year. The NRL couldn't do a thing. The Warriors had a dream run last year after all that. Up the Wahs.

Todd Payten pretty much called the referees cheats. Cowboys had a dream run in 2022. Until the moment they met Atkins against Eels in a semi.

When Roosters lose Trent Robinson doesn't hold back in press conferences. Politis gets his mates in the media into work following the Robinson attack. Referees help Roosters afterwards.

We have Gould on Twitter & Channel 9, Mason has a podcast, Graham has a podcast & on Triple M, Reynolds might be on a podcast these days and Bulldog Ritchie in the papers. We have outlets to absolutely attack the referees and get into their conscious.

I will say. How the team reacts to bad refereeing will be the test. We won rounds 2 and 3 last year. We began to cop some raw deals with a 50/50 call, injury to Fox and injury to Kiraz and our shoulders dropped and morale was destroyed. How we react to cheating will define us as a competitive team pushing the 8 or only being above a couple of teams for the spoon.

 

[Alan79]

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

Burton makes a linebreak and passes to Kikau

View attachment 104201

Trindall runs behind ref tracking Burton’s run

View attachment 104202

Then he turns as Kikau gets the ball

View attachment 104203

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

View attachment 104204

Every part of that looks like it was milked. He took the wrong option, turned and ran into the ref deliberately IMO.

I wouldn't want to be one of these refs. I assume that the bias is dictated by the gambling agencies. The new refs discretion rules began being implemented around when gambling agencies first signed on as sponsors. And refereeing got very bad very quickly. So I assume a lot of results are dictated to maximise their profit. I can't believe it's just bias based on position on the ladder which many think is the case. But someone is going to belt the living shit out of one of them one of these days or worse. It mightn't even be about their team being screwed. I'd imagine someone who's lost big money on the basis of shit calls will eventually arrange for some legs to be broken or worse.

 

[Magic Burton]

In the past if you made contact with a referee it was a long holiday. Wayne Chisholm of Souths copped 12 weeks.

 

[steeliz]

Cover restarts?
View attachment 104234
The ref got in the way of the game prior to the 'try'. Thats not in the laws of the game and it irregularly affected the match. Straight from the international rules, the NRL points to this. Exactly the same as some random punter jumped out of the crowd and tackled the last defender. Thats not in the laws either.

So the bunker asked whether it irregularly affected the game. They decided it did. And thats it.

But hey. Disagree with me, the NRL and 99% of the internet. We could be all wrong.

That rule relies on the term "fault cannot be attributed to either term".

Trindall chose to run behind the Ref therefore creating the gap.

If he stood his ground then this rule might apply, but because he chose to slide to his right it was a defensive decision that put him in the wrong spot.

Because Trindall chose this course of action then fault can be applied to his decision for a defensive error and fault can be attributed to a poor defensive read like that applied in obstruction calls.

 

[Doogie]

That rule relies on the term "fault cannot be attributed to either term".

Trindall chose to run behind the Ref therefore creating the gap.

If he stood his ground then this rule might apply, but because he chose to slide to his right it was a defensive decision that put him in the wrong spot.

Because Trindall chose this course of action then fault can be applied to his decision for a defensive error and fault can be attributed to a poor defensive read like that applied in obstruction calls.

You are 100% right.

Except the bunker decided it was not a defensive error. Now you can argue that but reckon you'll do it every game until eternity.

I'm not looking at it seeing a grievous fck up. I'm looking at it and seeing what they see. Agree with it or not.

 

[steeliz]

You are 100% right.

Except the bunker decided it was not a defensive error. Now you can argue that but reckon you'll do it every game until eternity.

I'm not looking at it seeing a grievous fck up. I'm looking at it and seeing what they see. Agree with it or not.

The bunker has been proven wrong on many occasions.

Compare that to the try the Warriors scored against us last year to win the game.

Even though Mahoney was obstructed they ruled that he had no chance of stopping the try so it was awarded and the Warriors won the game..

The EXACT opposite ruling to this one.

 

[Doogie]

The bunker has been proven wrong on many occasions.

Compare that to the try the Warriors scored against us last year to win the game.

Even though Mahoney was obstructed they ruled that he had no chance of stopping the try so it was awarded and the Warriors won the game..

The EXACT opposite ruling to this one.

Told ya you'd argue that

 

[Roscothebulldog]

You got some literacy issues or something.

So what exactly am I defending here? Oh I know - that the ref enforced the rules. Go figure.

Ref enforced the rules. You have to be kidding. Should change your name from Doogie to Deluded.

 

[dekepefc]

Haven't for quite a while but is what it is. Now if you want to argue the ref fckd up - fair play. But he did. So the bunk decides whether the player was obstructed. He was and they did. So no try.

This is not hard. If the shoe was on the other foot and the try was given you'd be losing your shit more than now. Is what it is.

The shoe has been on the other foot for years.. that's why everyone is so shitted off. Not with this exact scenario but in lots of different situations.. remember last year when mahoney was obstructed but they decided it had no effect on the game, remember when Kyle Flanagan was penalised for a push in the back? Last night there were two contentious try decisions that went against us. We have conceded countless amount of try's off the back of dodgy calls during the set. We cop decisions that opposing fans agree we were ripped off by, but it happens every week.. and often in decisions such as 6 agains on 5th tackles which aren't spoken about. We aren't good enough to beat 13 players plus the ref and video ref.. we're still working on being good enough to beat 13 in a fair contest.

 

[wendog33]

 

[Doogie]

Ref enforced the rules. You have to be kidding. Should change your name from Doogie to Deluded.

U go @Roscothebulldog - u wasted one of your 50 odd posts on me. I feel appreciated.

 

[Kempsey Dog]

Cover restarts?
View attachment 104234
The ref got in the way of the game prior to the 'try'. Thats not in the laws of the game and it irregularly affected the match. Straight from the international rules, the NRL points to this. Exactly the same as some random punter jumped out of the crowd and tackled the last defender. Thats not in the laws either.

So the bunker asked whether it irregularly affected the game. They decided it did. And thats it.

But hey. Disagree with me, the NRL and 99% of the internet. We could be all wrong.

Rules like this and all new rules introduced are designed to give refs discretion to cheat... Always worded in such a way to escape responsibility

 

[Magic Burton]

Rules like this and all new rules introduced are designed to give refs discretion to cheat... Always worded in such a way to escape responsibility

Used to be scrum penalties back in the days before 1981/82 players could kick for goal off a scrum penalty.

The entire Bob Fulton Bill Harrigan thing blew up in 1987 when Harrigan kept on penalising Des Hasler for scrum feeds he sin binned Hasler in the end. By 1987 there were so few tight heads. Harrigan chose a time to make himself famous and Fulton delivered with the cement truck comment.

Now new rules get invented and bunker interference happens more. Of course we had Vegas why else would they go there?