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

[beastwood89]

Sent from my iPhone using The Kennel mobile app

 

[beastwood89]

So might be on me some of those calls should’ve kept my mouth shut


Sent from my iPhone using The Kennel mobile app

 

[Doogie]

Now for all the uneducated out there - here are the rules. This is a mutual infringement call from the international rules. The NRL rules point at the same thing. Read last bit.


Section 6 3 (e)


So 6 3 (e) is irrelevant as thats the attacker touching the ref. So its 100% a ref call on whether trindall was interfered with. Same as a gazillion obstruction calls every day of the week. And with obstruction calls, the only thing that matters is opportunity, not whether they would have made the tackle or not. Was Trindall denied opportunity - yep. Would he have tackled Kiks - probably not. But he could have punched the ball out, smothered the ball and a whole range of other things that could have stopped the try. Unlikely, yes. But the rules do not cover unlikely. As I said b4 - if that was a Dogs decoy runner standing there instead of the ref thats an obstruction every day of every week.

Now if you really want to go there - gonzo threw us a bone. I believe play was restarted on the 10m line whereas the previous tackle was around 25m out. Sort of a 50/50 as to whether Trindall was in the in goal when he made contact.

Nuff said. Move on.

 

[wendog33]

So might be on me some of those calls should’ve kept my mouth shut


Sent from my iPhone using The Kennel mobile app

Next time drop a big wad of dollars on the path. That will work....offer more lol

 

[King Gus]

Not my fault you added to it. But ok - lets play your game.

So if a decoy runner went through and stood right where the ref was and Trindall was blocked from making a tackle on Kiks - you gunna tell me thats not an obstruction?

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.

 

[bradyk]

Now for all the uneducated out there - here are the rules. This is a mutual infringement call from the international rules. The NRL rules point at the same thing. Read last bit.
View attachment 104196

Section 6 3 (e)
View attachment 104197

So 6 3 (e) is irrelevant as thats the attacker touching the ref. So its 100% a ref call on whether trindall was interfered with. Same as a gazillion obstruction calls every day of the week. And with obstruction calls, the only thing that matters is opportunity, not whether they would have made the tackle or not. Was Trindall denied opportunity - yep. Would he have tackled Kiks - probably not. But he could have punched the ball out, smothered the ball and a whole range of other things that could have stopped the try. Unlikely, yes. But the rules do not cover unlikely. As I said b4 - if that was a Dogs decoy runner standing there instead of the ref thats an obstruction every day of every week.

Now if you really want to go there - gonzo threw us a bone. I believe play was restarted on the 10m line whereas the previous tackle was around 25m out. Sort of a 50/50 as to whether Trindall was in the in goal when he made contact.

Nuff said. Move on.

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

 

[King Gus]

Now for all the uneducated out there - here are the rules. This is a mutual infringement call from the international rules. The NRL rules point at the same thing. Read last bit.
View attachment 104196

Section 6 3 (e)
View attachment 104197

So 6 3 (e) is irrelevant as thats the attacker touching the ref. So its 100% a ref call on whether trindall was interfered with. Same as a gazillion obstruction calls every day of the week. And with obstruction calls, the only thing that matters is opportunity, not whether they would have made the tackle or not. Was Trindall denied opportunity - yep. Would he have tackled Kiks - probably not. But he could have punched the ball out, smothered the ball and a whole range of other things that could have stopped the try. Unlikely, yes. But the rules do not cover unlikely. As I said b4 - if that was a Dogs decoy runner standing there instead of the ref thats an obstruction every day of every week.

Now if you really want to go there - gonzo threw us a bone. I believe play was restarted on the 10m line whereas the previous tackle was around 25m out. Sort of a 50/50 as to whether Trindall was in the in goal when he made contact.

Nuff said. Move on.

So it’s the refs call basically 50/50 call, that explains it.

 

[wendog33]

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

Pity we had no runner options for Kiks to pass to. That would have taken the ref's involvement outa the picture.

 

[dogluva]

Now for all the uneducated out there - here are the rules. This is a mutual infringement call from the international rules. The NRL rules point at the same thing. Read last bit.
View attachment 104196

Section 6 3 (e)
View attachment 104197

So 6 3 (e) is irrelevant as thats the attacker touching the ref. So its 100% a ref call on whether trindall was interfered with. Same as a gazillion obstruction calls every day of the week. And with obstruction calls, the only thing that matters is opportunity, not whether they would have made the tackle or not. Was Trindall denied opportunity - yep. Would he have tackled Kiks - probably not. But he could have punched the ball out, smothered the ball and a whole range of other things that could have stopped the try. Unlikely, yes. But the rules do not cover unlikely. As I said b4 - if that was a Dogs decoy runner standing there instead of the ref thats an obstruction every day of every week.

Now if you really want to go there - gonzo threw us a bone. I believe play was restarted on the 10m line whereas the previous tackle was around 25m out. Sort of a 50/50 as to whether Trindall was in the in goal when he made contact.

Nuff said. Move on.

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.....

 

[Chris Harding]

If the shoe was on the other foot I’m sure he would’ve had a different opinion!

So would the ref.

 

[Chris Harding]

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?

 

[InGusWeTrust]

Would you guys believe me if I told you I seen that POS ziggy on Thursday walking out of training at Olympic park and walking towards me with another referee seemed like a touchy. I yell out give us a fair go on Friday against the sharks. He looks and smirks and says can only hope. Like what the actual fuck. I guess you can take his response in a few different ways but I swear it was a smugness response with his ugly head. I even snapped a photo of him walking past me. Posted it on my WhatsApp to my friends and said oh well looks like we gonna get some bad calls on Friday With laughing emojis.


Sent from my iPhone using The Kennel mobile app

And to think I actually thought we’d get good, neutral refereeing from him haha how fkn wrong could I have been?! Every call he automatically favoured sharts.

 

[Bad Billy]

We all know of it was the other way round the Kennel would think Taafe could have stopped Talakai

No, we’d have said Taffe could stop him but none of us would actually believe it.

 

[Dogs4EVA-1]

Trey Mooney just ran for 170+ metres in NSW Cup, does it every week.. we should be banging down his door to sign him immediately.. Gun Young Prop 6Ft 2, 106kgs.. great size for a modern front rower,.. But that's too obvious for our Recruiting dept..

 

[GoTheDoggies]

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

Exactly, no one gives a fuck about the rule interpretation. It's the fact the cuck referee's positioning was horrendous. He had plenty of time to move out of the way once the play changed direction.

 

[InGusWeTrust]

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?

I thought he was lucky to stay on, but wonder how much of that was that it wasn’t even picked up immediately. I mean the bunker still noticed it and informed the ref, so there was certainly enough evidence there. It was a pretty severe shoulder direct to the head. Iirc his arm was by his side, so he was very lucky not to be sent for it. And yet only got 2 weeks was it?

 

[dogluva]

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?

Briton Nikora (Sharks)

Grade 2 Careless High Tackle

2nd Offence

TBC

2-3 matches

I tend to agree with Voss. Second such infringement from that player and I really cannot understand how that was missed at the time it happened. Probably the fact that Kikau was ok saved him but with one like that and the fact we had already lost a player to a head issue, well I can only think it was pulled up simply because the ref got a heads up from the bunker or possibly the touchie.

The NRL has made a rod for its own back now with their declaration about protecting players from head trauma. A simple slap across the chest is penalised as a high tackle in that same game yet one a million times worse is a penalty and ten in the bin...

 

[Bad Billy]

Briton Nikora (Sharks)

Grade 2 Careless High Tackle

2nd Offence

TBC

2-3 matches

I tend to agree with Voss. Second such infringement from that player and I really cannot understand how that was missed at the time it happened. Probably the fact that Kikau was ok saved him but with one like that and the fact we had already lost a player to a head issue, well I can only think it was pulled up simply because the ref got a heads up from the bunker or possibly the touchie.

The NRL has made a rod for its own back now with their declaration about protecting players from head trauma. A simple slap across the chest is penalised as a high tackle in that same game yet one a million times worse is a penalty and ten in the bin...

How many weeks is Kikau getting for his “high shot”?

 

[Bad Billy]

Now for all the uneducated out there - here are the rules. This is a mutual infringement call from the international rules. The NRL rules point at the same thing. Read last bit.
View attachment 104196

Section 6 3 (e)
View attachment 104197

So 6 3 (e) is irrelevant as thats the attacker touching the ref. So its 100% a ref call on whether trindall was interfered with. Same as a gazillion obstruction calls every day of the week. And with obstruction calls, the only thing that matters is opportunity, not whether they would have made the tackle or not. Was Trindall denied opportunity - yep. Would he have tackled Kiks - probably not. But he could have punched the ball out, smothered the ball and a whole range of other things that could have stopped the try. Unlikely, yes. But the rules do not cover unlikely. As I said b4 - if that was a Dogs decoy runner standing there instead of the ref thats an obstruction every day of every week.

Now if you really want to go there - gonzo threw us a bone. I believe play was restarted on the 10m line whereas the previous tackle was around 25m out. Sort of a 50/50 as to whether Trindall was in the in goal when he made contact.

Nuff said. Move on.

Remember when bulldogs fans, actually wanted to see the bulldogs win?
I do. It’s was why I joined this forum.
there was not a user on here that gave a fuck that the Black Friday decision was technically correct.
all we cared about was the dogs got fucked.
now all we care about is being right with our social media angle.

 

[Bad Billy]

View attachment 104194


Sent from my iPhone using The Kennel mobile app

On my way!