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

[Bob dog]

Fair try, prejudiced bullshit, prolly hates Bob

 

[Rumdogmillionaire]

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

Was that Sexton's fault or Perham's??
Or perhaps in tandem? Either way, it was fucking embarrassing. But we still won the game!!
Perham really struggles to hold shape at centre defensively ...which makes me wonder why CC persisted so long with him at FB last year.
I agree that Hutch is a much better defender - he's like a back rower with solid, dominant tackles.
Just wish his legs were a bit quicker.
STILL .... (as a Rumdog Bundy Queenslander) - Cameron Smith had no leg speed either. Only speed he had was between the ears!!
Perhaps there is hope for Hutch after all?

 

[dogluva]

So how exactly did he run behind the ref if he collided with the ref? Are you saying the ref collided with him then because Ziggy was moving backwards into the in goal. Well, thats an obstruction anyways because Kiks was going in that direction. Or are you saying he should have run around the front of the ref who was moving backwards? If he cannot go A to B because of the ref - thats still obstruction.

If I'm Trindall and 80kg wringing wet and see Kiks coming at me from 8m out, I'm not charging him to tackle him. I'm trying to get in front of Kiks and tie up the ball.

Back at work today and spoke to a range of others supporters from other teams about the weekend. To a man they reckon we were pretty unlucky with the Nikora non send off. No one felt that this was a wrong decision.

But thats cool. I've watched that 3 times and haven't changed my view. The NRL does not support your view. Not one commentator supports your view. Not one supporter from another team I know supports your view (and I left the sharkies boys out of it). As I said before, plenty to complain about in this game but this one, pretty on point with the rules. 100% on the ref. But its not against the rules.

And, in case we want to go there, you want to compare that to the storm, that was more interesting. Hughes was obstructed but no doubt initiated the contact and no try was scored on that play. So the bunker is not involved and per the rules, could be argued that it never affected play as Hughes made the tackle. So play on.

So not missing anything or ignoring anything. Some spend their entire life here arguing the rules are not followed. He we have the rules being followed and people are still arguing. Maybe they just like to argue.

Oh Doogie Doogie Doogie.

Today the NRL el supremo of operations Mr Annesely has confirmed what a lot of us have said...mutual infringement is NOT the correct ruling for a defender colliding with a referee it MAY NOT be a mutual infringement. The correct ruling should have been surprise surprise a try awarded to the dogs. Of course does not help us and we have to move on from it but it feels nice to be vindicated.

 

[steeliz]

So how exactly did he run behind the ref if he collided with the ref? Are you saying the ref collided with him then because Ziggy was moving backwards into the in goal. Well, thats an obstruction anyways because Kiks was going in that direction. Or are you saying he should have run around the front of the ref who was moving backwards? If he cannot go A to B because of the ref - thats still obstruction.

If I'm Trindall and 80kg wringing wet and see Kiks coming at me from 8m out, I'm not charging him to tackle him. I'm trying to get in front of Kiks and tie up the ball.

Back at work today and spoke to a range of others supporters from other teams about the weekend. To a man they reckon we were pretty unlucky with the Nikora non send off. No one felt that this was a wrong decision.

But thats cool. I've watched that 3 times and haven't changed my view. The NRL does not support your view. Not one commentator supports your view. Not one supporter from another team I know supports your view (and I left the sharkies boys out of it). As I said before, plenty to complain about in this game but this one, pretty on point with the rules. 100% on the ref. But its not against the rules.

And, in case we want to go there, you want to compare that to the storm, that was more interesting. Hughes was obstructed but no doubt initiated the contact and no try was scored on that play. So the bunker is not involved and per the rules, could be argued that it never affected play as Hughes made the tackle. So play on.

So not missing anything or ignoring anything. Some spend their entire life here arguing the rules are not followed. He we have the rules being followed and people are still arguing. Maybe they just like to argue.

So if he collided with the ref then why wasn't he suspended like Jerome Hughes who also collided with the ref???

 

[Philistine]

So if he collided with the ref then why wasn't he suspended like Jerome Hughes who also collided with the ref???

Hughes actually pushed the ref out of his way, causing him to fall. That has been a hanging offence since 1908. The NRL don't mind players beating each other up provided nobody starts any embarrassing talk about duty of care, but referees have to be protected at all costs.

 

[InGusWeTrust]

View attachment 104194


Sent from my iPhone using The Kennel mobile app

This is the pic I was talking about in the “ripped off” thread. Sorry @beastwood89 I couldn’t remember who posted it and called you whatshisname lol.

So this was the onfield and bunker ref from our game where we got all the bad calls hmm?…

 

[speedy2460]

Todd Payten nailed a while back when he said the teams closer to the bottom of the ladder are not treated as equally as those near the top. It may be sub-conscious thing or it may be corrupt. The question has to be asked when so many close calls go against the same teams/clubs. Hopefully Ciraldo can put the spotlight on this and get some action on consistency. I hope, I'm not confident though.....

Has anyone noticed how many clubs are sponsored by betting agencies?

 

[wendog33]

This is the pic I was talking about in the “ripped off” thread. Sorry @beastwood89 I couldn’t remember who posted it and called you whatshisname lol.

So this was the onfield and bunker ref from our game where we got all the bad calls hmm?…

It certainly looks like it could be him.

Why were the refs changed for this game as well.....anyone got info.on why (conspiracy theory lol)

 

[Doogie]

Oh Doogie Doogie Doogie.

Today the NRL el supremo of operations Mr Annesely has confirmed what a lot of us have said...mutual infringement is NOT the correct ruling for a defender colliding with a referee it MAY NOT be a mutual infringement. The correct ruling should have been surprise surprise a try awarded to the dogs. Of course does not help us and we have to move on from it but it feels nice to be vindicated.

Did you actually listen to it? He never mentioned mutual infringement at all. He said and I quote - the ref felt play was irregularly interfered with, it was a defenders decision and that he thinks that it should have been awarded. The ref has nowhere to go. Now you can make the same argument with decoy runners, tacklers in the ruck etc etc. which are called every day of the week. He also mentioned that its not a black and white rule game. The play the ball afterwards made it simple, it was called mutual infringement. And mutual infringement rules per the rulebook I've posted before. At no point did he say anything about defenders contacting refs.

He also said he has this position because he doesn't want defenders crashing into refs every day of the week and claiming mutual infringement. Like the storm the following night - go figure.

So lets break down analsleys words. Because Trindall ran across behind the ref along the try line prior to Burton passing the ball on the inside to Kiks, he has to run the same line back again to try tackle a 120kg dude who by the time he gets there on that line is over the try line. Now when I played footy and a guy is held up but may offload, you make yourself available as a defender. And when he gets the offload and that guy is clear, you go straight for him. As I said before, the ref should not have been there. He fckd up and it cost a try but the ruling was not incorrect. Its just a matter of what you think. Per Analseys words.

 

[wendog33]

This is one they couldn't take off us

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1769588790170124295

 

[Tassie Devil]

Did you actually listen to it? He never mentioned mutual infringement at all. He said and I quote - the ref felt play was irregularly interfered with, it was a defenders decision and that he thinks that it should have been awarded. The ref has nowhere to go. Now you can make the same argument with decoy runners, tacklers in the ruck etc etc. which are called every day of the week. He also mentioned that its not a black and white rule game. The play the ball afterwards made it simple, it was called mutual infringement. And mutual infringement rules per the rulebook I've posted before. At no point did he say anything about defenders contacting refs.

He also said he has this position because he doesn't want defenders crashing into refs every day of the week and claiming mutual infringement. Like the storm the following night - go figure.

So lets break down analsleys words. Because Trindall ran across behind the ref along the try line prior to Burton passing the ball on the inside to Kiks, he has to run the same line back again to try tackle a 120kg dude who by the time he gets there on that line is over the try line. Now when I played footy and a guy is held up but may offload, you make yourself available as a defender. And when he gets the offload and that guy is clear, you go straight for him. As I said before, the ref should not have been there. He fckd up and it cost a try but the ruling was not incorrect. Its just a matter of what you think. Per Analseys words.

It's on. The only reason why I bother coming on this site anymore these days is to see a bit of biff. Love it

 

[Chris Harding]

Oh Doogie Doogie Doogie.

Today the NRL el supremo of operations Mr Annesely has confirmed what a lot of us have said...mutual infringement is NOT the correct ruling for a defender colliding with a referee it MAY NOT be a mutual infringement. The correct ruling should have been surprise surprise a try awarded to the dogs. Of course does not help us and we have to move on from it but it feels nice to be vindicated.

It has been a legitimate tactic to use the ref as a shepherd in general play for as long as I've been following the game - and that's a long, long time.

 

[EL Hefe]

So how exactly did he run behind the ref if he collided with the ref? Are you saying the ref collided with him then because Ziggy was moving backwards into the in goal. Well, thats an obstruction anyways because Kiks was going in that direction. Or are you saying he should have run around the front of the ref who was moving backwards? If he cannot go A to B because of the ref - thats still obstruction.

If I'm Trindall and 80kg wringing wet and see Kiks coming at me from 8m out, I'm not charging him to tackle him. I'm trying to get in front of Kiks and tie up the ball.

Back at work today and spoke to a range of others supporters from other teams about the weekend. To a man they reckon we were pretty unlucky with the Nikora non send off. No one felt that this was a wrong decision.

But thats cool. I've watched that 3 times and haven't changed my view. The NRL does not support your view. Not one commentator supports your view. Not one supporter from another team I know supports your view (and I left the sharkies boys out of it). As I said before, plenty to complain about in this game but this one, pretty on point with the rules. 100% on the ref. But its not against the rules.

And, in case we want to go there, you want to compare that to the storm, that was more interesting. Hughes was obstructed but no doubt initiated the contact and no try was scored on that play. So the bunker is not involved and per the rules, could be argued that it never affected play as Hughes made the tackle. So play on.

So not missing anything or ignoring anything. Some spend their entire life here arguing the rules are not followed. He we have the rules being followed and people are still arguing. Maybe they just like to argue.

 

[TwinTurbo]

Did you actually listen to it? He never mentioned mutual infringement at all. He said and I quote - the ref felt play was irregularly interfered with, it was a defenders decision and that he thinks that it should have been awarded. The ref has nowhere to go. Now you can make the same argument with decoy runners, tacklers in the ruck etc etc. which are called every day of the week. He also mentioned that its not a black and white rule game. The play the ball afterwards made it simple, it was called mutual infringement. And mutual infringement rules per the rulebook I've posted before. At no point did he say anything about defenders contacting refs.

He also said he has this position because he doesn't want defenders crashing into refs every day of the week and claiming mutual infringement. Like the storm the following night - go figure.

So lets break down analsleys words. Because Trindall ran across behind the ref along the try line prior to Burton passing the ball on the inside to Kiks, he has to run the same line back again to try tackle a 120kg dude who by the time he gets there on that line is over the try line. Now when I played footy and a guy is held up but may offload, you make yourself available as a defender. And when he gets the offload and that guy is clear, you go straight for him. As I said before, the ref should not have been there. He fckd up and it cost a try but the ruling was not incorrect. Its just a matter of what you think. Per Analseys words.

FFS, Annersely said in plain English the decision was wrong, the try should have been awarded, and he used exactly the same descriptors as I did. Basically that Trindall chose to run behind the ref, when he could have just as easily defended in front of him, that was the only real issue. Annersely as usual used lots of words to whitewash the ref and bunker's mistakes, which he always does, most of what he said was simply filler, only one thing he said really mattered, the try should have been awarded.


While I am at it, how farked was Fitzgibbon's comment that Trindall would have tackled Kikau 5 metres from the try line. Bullshit of the highest order, Kikau only received the ball 5 metres out and then scored 5 metre into the in goal. Trindall was out of position, left gaps in the defensive line, made a bad decision, ran behind the ref, and as a result was never going to get remotely close to tackling Kikau.


Always a Bulldog

 

[PeteHazz]

View attachment 104381

I stand corrected. I really thought he was going to trot out the "tight, but right" that he does for us every week

Good on him

 

[PeteHazz]

While I am at it, how farked was Fitzgibbon's comment that Trindall would have tackled Kikau 5 metres from the try line. Bullshit of the highest order, Kikau only received the ball 5 metres out and then scored 5 metre into the in goal. Trindall was out of position, left gaps in the defensive line, made a bad decision, ran behind the ref, and as a result was never going to get remotely close to tackling Kikau.


Always a Bulldog

100%

fitz and demetriou are two of the worst at this. Absolutely sook and moan about other teams and don't really look at their own. 1000 times one on one in that position, Kikau scores. As for the comments about bind up the ball?!?! trindall would need a ladder first and the strength second, coming for that position to bind the ball. very hard to do from where he was

 

[Tassie Devil]

FFS, Annersely said in plain English the decision was wrong, the try should have been awarded, and he used exactly the same descriptors as I did. Basically that Trindall chose to run behind the ref, when he could have just as easily defended in front of him, that was the only real issue. Annersely as usual used lots of words to whitewash the ref and bunker's mistakes, which he always does, most of what he said was simply filler, only one thing he said really mattered, the try should have been awarded.


While I am at it, how farked was Fitzgibbon's comment that Trindall would have tackled Kikau 5 metres from the try line. Bullshit of the highest order, Kikau only received the ball 5 metres out and then scored 5 metre into the in goal. Trindall was out of position, left gaps in the defensive line, made a bad decision, ran behind the ref, and as a result was never going to get remotely close to tackling Kikau.


Always a Bulldog

He's calling you an idiot @Doogie ... I wouldn't take that!

 

[D.O.W.]

To be fair to the “poor souls” 8 years waiting to make the finals again is not “immediate “

There are murderers that have been let out of prison in that time ffs

Agree mate, we will get there, we had 30-40 years of success, this is a speed bump in the journey

 

[belmore_utd]

This is one they couldn't take off us

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1769588790170124295

A few of us joked at the time that Barba would be charged for trying to take the defenders arm off with his head

 

[PeteHazz]

This is one they couldn't take off us

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1769588790170124295

Goodness we were exciting to watch...