Broncos should’ve had 2 tries Disallowed

[gibbo2]

The held or not held is a fifty fifty call. Happy to go with the ref on that one. The obstruction rule though is a dogs breakfast and I have no idea what is or what isn't these days. They have over complicated it with technicality's about inside shoulders etc. looking at it there was clear contact on our player which interfered with his ability to make a tackle. To me when a player is interfered with that's when an obstruction has actually occurred . Not according to the stupid rule book lol. We were the better team last night but didn't convert our chances into points unfortunately . It was one of the better performances we have had in quite a few years- so encouraging signs.

 

[senshidog]

Correct me if I'm wrong but many moons ago weren't both of these incidents classed as penalties?

 

[2144superman]

Correct me if I'm wrong but many moons ago weren't both of these incidents classed as penalties?

Yes sir. You would be correct.

 

[Novdoggie]

I just had a look at the press conference and Baz highlighted the fact that the strip on burns was held and the second farnworth try from the scrum was an obstruction and is seeking explanation from the Nrl… I had a look at the footages again and hes right… especially the obstruction.. burns was denied an opportunity to slide which left okunbor stranded

Absolutely, he is right, but he is also right when he said we had enough chances to win the game. We should not have let it come to those decisions to decide the game. We STILL struggle 10mtrs out with creativity, and that is costing us big time!!

 

[GrogDog]

Our coaching staff think he’s good. I know for a fact Gus is a big fan. So maybe I’m not the clueless one

So you're saying the Coaching staff, Gus and you are all clueless? Well kudos for admitting it, that's a starting point.

 

[Brendan7]

Strip was fine just a loose carry and typical of Burns he has these moments. He did have a good game though. The obstruction is a lottery always has been. There’s zero consistency.

when they went black and white (any touch of a defender being a penalty) everyone whinged. I don’t have a perfect answer to these obstructing runners

 

[2144superman]

Strip was fine just a loose carry and typical of Burns he has these moments. He did have a good game though. The obstruction is a lottery always has been. There’s zero consistency.

when they went black and white (any touch of a defender being a penalty) everyone whinged. I don’t have a perfect answer to these obstructing runners

The strip was fine? the tackle was complete. So it was not fine. It was a penalty to the Bulldogs. The tackle was already complete by the time the ball had been stripped.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

The strip was fine? the tackle was complete. So it was not fine. It was a penalty to the Bulldogs. The tackle was already complete by the time the ball had been stripped.

Only if it's called complete, which it wasn't unfortunately.

Wasn't a loose carry though. Clearly a strip. Just a legal one under the current rules.

 

[Brendan7]

The strip was fine? the tackle was complete. So it was not fine. It was a penalty to the Bulldogs. The tackle was already complete by the time the ball had been stripped.

It wasn’t complete and honestly it’s just poor ball security. We had so much possession anyway we deserved to lose in the end. Even in that strip how about Okunbour actually tries to defend it. Have no problem with it being play on though

 

[DinkumDog]

From what I saw Burns' forearm was on the ground while he still had the ball and while being touched by a defender which should mean any strip would be a penalty because the tackle is complete at that point.

If Burns tried to offload from that position, it'd be a penalty against him. A split second later he gets stripped, so its a close call in real time. But the bunker should have seen his forearm on the ground slightly before he was stripped.

From the rule book:


So I think it was deemed that because the hand and/or arm carrying ball or the ball itself didn’t touch the ground, the tackle isn’t completed.



Yeah, he probably wasn’t going anywhere but the rules show the ref hasn’t blundered. It’s just a case that being on the wrong end of that call you feel a bit short changed. As usual there’s no evidence of anything being ‘rigged’ and TK prosecutors should move on.

 

[Rassayri]

I just had a look at the press conference and Baz highlighted the fact that the strip on burns was held and the second farnworth try from the scrum was an obstruction and is seeking explanation from the Nrl… I had a look at the footages again and hes right… especially the obstruction.. burns was denied an opportunity to slide which left okunbor stranded

Maybe not the obstruction but definitely the strip

 

[Flanagun]

How does Gus disagree?

You know I love you but your trolling is getting stale.

Knockonmor is shit and if you can't see that then you don't know footy.

He’s clearly a fan of the Ok. Do you really think Barrett is running the shots when it comes to recruitment and retention?

And bro, I logged in to 33 notifications this afternoon. I am a valued discussion maker on this forum. Hurts a little to hear you call me stake, not gonna lie.

 

[wendog33]

Just because he doesn't, doesn't mean they aren't coached to do it. Maybe the players didn't think it was an obstruction so didn't do a swan dive

Looks clear cut obstruction tho.

 

[bulldog]

Only thing I can say with certainty is if these were scored by us there would be no debate, the ref would have sent them up as no try and the bunker would have backed the call.

 

[Haddaway]

Just for me there are a lot of times I think the ref should call held, not just this call.

Imo he was tackled.

 

[wendog33]

Just for me there are a lot of times I think the ref should call held, not just this call.

Imo he was tackled.

They wait too long to call held and that causes all the wrestle... and hands on the ball is ridiculous as players attempt to play it.

 

[OldDogFan]

The strip was fine but the other was an obstruction. The rule is black and white. You can’t run into the outside shoulder of the defender no matter how minimal contact is. There’s no discretion in this area.

Unfortunately the rule isn't black and white. Sometime in the recent past, the term "at the referees discretion" has been added, therefore dispite all of Annersleys debunking it does indeed give the referee or officials (bunker) the opportunity to influence the outcome of a match.

 

[wendog33]

Because Braidon Burns didn’t take a theatrical dive, the bunker didn’t rule on this obstruction. Do you agree? | By Bulldogs Kennel - Facebook

Because Braidon Burns didn’t take a theatrical dive, the bunker didn’t rule on this obstruction. Do you agree?

fb.watch

 

[Gene Krupa]

Because Braidon Burns didn’t take a theatrical dive, the bunker didn’t rule on this obstruction. Do you agree? | By Bulldogs Kennel - Facebook

Because Braidon Burns didn’t take a theatrical dive, the bunker didn’t rule on this obstruction. Do you agree?

fb.watch

I need teletext to understand him

 

[wendog33]

I need teletext to understand him

You only need to look at the pitchas to see the obstruction tho.