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

Psycho Doggie

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Mar 25, 2014
Messages
18,339
Reaction score
26,264
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.
This is a worthwhile point. I wonder how much of a coincidence it was that the very next evening Jarome Hughes makes contact with the ref when the opposition were in a try scoring situation, and now he is going to miss a game for contrary conduct. Strom are well known for paying attention to how the game is officiated and trying to take advantage of any quirky interpretations. The NRL perhaps realised that the incident in our game had opened the door to some very dodgy play, just run into the ref whenever the other team looks like they might score. When Hughes tried it, they've decided to nip it in the bud. The defender has to take some responsibility, between he and the ref, he is the one who could see what was going on, the ref very rightly is keeping his attention on where the ball is.
 

InGusWeTrust

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 21, 2021
Messages
4,272
Reaction score
7,206
In that same game Hughes was lucky to be awarded a penalty for obstruction. Iirc he was angled back in and decided to tackle the decoy runner. He’s often looking for obstructions. Warriors had the try disallowed because of that one, which probably cost them the game.
 

Crashdog

Waterboy
Joined
Jan 25, 2022
Messages
61
Reaction score
108
The NRL hasn’t taken long to put us back in our place.
CC says he is having to bite his tongue about the quality of refereeing so they give us the very ref who made the decision of No Try to Kikau from the bunker - Todd Smith.
Not too subtle ‘Back in your box Bulldogs. We run the league and you will just have to cop what we dish up to you.’
 

dogbone

Kennel Established
Joined
Mar 18, 2014
Messages
564
Reaction score
562
In that same game Hughes was lucky to be awarded a penalty for obstruction. Iirc he was angled back in and decided to tackle the decoy runner. He’s often looking for obstructions. Warriors had the try disallowed because of that one, which probably cost them the game.
That was a shocking call. It was clear as day Hughes made a decision to take the lead runner.
 

flamebouyant

Kennel Legend
Joined
Sep 27, 2016
Messages
10,088
Reaction score
14,939
The pity party when the rules are not followed is one thing. Now we have a pity party when the rules are followed.

Yep - must be brain damaged for sure.
If you can argue a case for a penalty try when it's beyond reasonable doubt that the player would have scored, then why can't you award a trybin the kikau situation where it is obvious that Trindall would not have stopped the try?
 

Berries

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
16,902
Reaction score
8,938
The NRL hasn’t taken long to put us back in our place.
CC says he is having to bite his tongue about the quality of refereeing so they give us the very ref who made the decision of No Try to Kikau from the bunker - Todd Smith.
Not too subtle ‘Back in your box Bulldogs. We run the league and you will just have to cop what we dish up to you.’
People actually thought CC small little angry face was going to work. Needed to be more direct and risk himself copping a ban. But alas
 

flamebouyant

Kennel Legend
Joined
Sep 27, 2016
Messages
10,088
Reaction score
14,939
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?
The ref ain't a decoy runner though, he is impartial. He obstructs kikau from fairly scoring a try, as much as he stops Trindal from attempting to stop one.
 

blue & white blood

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
1,453
Reaction score
1,789
Lets see;
1. Taffe tackled in the air. Play on.
2. Taffe contests a knock on. Bunker apparently could see his hand clearly knocking it on...no on e else could
3. We put up a bomb & Kiraz is run off the ball...whole team stops...play on & they go 60 meters down the field
4. Kikau open run to the line with a 4 foot gnome running around the ref & getting a result.
5. Kikau shoulder charged late & off the ball which was a clear send off....nope 2 sets later they give him 10
6. Kikau slaps a players chest.....he loos at ref...he gets penalty
7. Cronulla's last try which was an absolute joke but bunker could clearly see the kick was legitimate & he didn't knock on

But nrlol will come out and say everything is legit on monday
I'm also amazed at how we always seem to lose the captain's challenged in the first five minutes of every game and don't have any when we need it, I can't remember the last time the bunker had a decision go our way even when it's a 50 / 50 call they will dissect it over and over so we don't get the call go our way,
 

Doogie

Kennel Lizard Lord
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
9,923
Reaction score
12,427
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
awesome - its a font size war.

So he actually said "I don't believe this try should have been overturned". He never said the ref made a mistake. Now that would be plain English.

And your argument is also ass because according to Analsley, Trindall should have run the same line behind the ref. But u reckon he could have run in front of him. The two of you need to get a hotel room and sort your shit out. Lol.
 

Doogie

Kennel Lizard Lord
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
9,923
Reaction score
12,427
If you can argue a case for a penalty try when it's beyond reasonable doubt that the player would have scored, then why can't you award a trybin the kikau situation where it is obvious that Trindall would not have stopped the try?
because according to the rules, mutual infringement is random shit not covered by the rules. Like you running into touch because Sydney Sweeney ran onto the field and flashed her tits in front of you. The ref getting in the way, per the refs interp, is random.
 

Doogie

Kennel Lizard Lord
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
9,923
Reaction score
12,427
The ref ain't a decoy runner though, he is impartial. He obstructs kikau from fairly scoring a try, as much as he stops Trindal from attempting to stop one.
Thanks. Impartial means obstruction by something not covered by the rules and therefore mutual infringement. Done deal.
 

Doogie

Kennel Lizard Lord
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
9,923
Reaction score
12,427
The ref ain't a decoy runner though, he is impartial. He obstructs kikau from fairly scoring a try, as much as he stops Trindal from attempting to stop one.
Exactly - so its mutual infringement and a play the ball because the ref fckd up the play. Simples.
 

steeliz

Kennel Addict
Joined
Sep 8, 2012
Messages
7,176
Reaction score
7,997
Exactly - so its mutual infringement and a play the ball because the ref fckd up the play. Simples.
Not true at all.

Trindall ran behind the Ref Then decided to run back in front of the ref knowing he was in the way.

Not even close to a mutual infringement.

Poor defensive.

Plain and simple.

Like Annesley said, should have been awarded.
 
Top