News Furious coach's stunning post-match accusation

[steeliz]

Link: Furious coach's stunning post-match accusation

" North Queensland coach Todd Payten has backed claims that lower-profile teams are not getting the rub of the green from referees on 50-50 calls. "

Welcome to our world Todd

 

[Typical dog]

Lower teams also make stupid fuckin decisions and dumbass mistakes which has cost teams like Cows plenty of games.

 

[Daustin]

We should never be mentioned as a ‘lower team’, sad what’s happened

 

[Bazildog]

He is on the short list of coaches to get the punt in 22.

 

[TwinTurbo]

Link: Furious coach's stunning post-match accusation

" North Queensland coach Todd Payten has backed claims that lower-profile teams are not getting the rub of the green from referees on 50-50 calls. "

Welcome to our world Todd

Lower teams also make stupid fuckin decisions and dumbass mistakes which has cost teams like Canterbury plenty of close games.

Those 2 claims are not mutually exclusive, just because a team makes stupid mistakes doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t get 50% of the 50/50 calls.

Refs are human (well some are) as a result it’s impossible for them to turn up at, for example, today’s game and not expect Melbourne to win. To make less mistakes than us, to commit less careless tackles, to knock the ball on more frequently, etc etc. So when a 50/50 call is required it’s obvious which way they will lean.

Always a Bulldog

 

[wendog33]

Lower teams also make stupid fuckin decisions and dumbass mistakes which has cost teams like Canterbury plenty of close games.

True but a lot are made under extreme fatigue and pressure of lop-sided 6agains and possession.

 

[Typical dog]

Those 2 claims are not mutually exclusive, just because a team makes stupid mistakes doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t get 50% of the 50/50 calls.

Refs are human (well some are) as a result it’s impossible for them to turn up at, for example, today’s game and not expect Melbourne to win. To make less mistakes than us, to commit less careless tackles, to knock the ball on more frequently, etc etc. So when a 50/50 call is required it’s obvious which way they will lean.

Always a Bulldog

They had 3 players binned and wants to blame the loss on refs. Maybe hold your players accountable for their actions on field

 

[Typical dog]

True but a lot are made under extreme fatigue and pressure of lop-sided 6agains and possession.

That can obviously have an impact. More highlighting the stupid things lower teams do, like Canterbury against Manly. Game locked at 12-12 and Burns takes on the sideline and has to throw stupid pass back in field giving away possession on halfway. Manly go on to kick field goal and it's game over. Also Burto kicking out on full with same scenario.

 

[steeliz]

That can obviously have an impact. More highlighting the stupid things lower teams do, like Canterbury against Manly. Game locked at 12-12 and Burns takes on the sideline and has to throw stupid pass back in field giving away possession on halfway. Manly go on to kick field goal and it's game over. Also Burto kicking out on full with same scenario.

Or maybe an obstruction call that should have been made that lead to the try that evened the scores so the Field Goal can come into play.

Players should be held accountable and most are but so should refs for their mistakes but they never are.

Instead Annesley comes out on Mondays and tries to justify the refs mistakes.

 

[Typical dog]

Or maybe an obstruction call that should have been made that lead to the try that evened the scores so the Field Goal can come into play.

Players should be held accountable and most are but so should refs for their mistakes but they never are.

Instead Annesley comes out on Mondays and tries to justify the refs mistakes.

I'm a die hard dogs fan, I know the useless bunker and refs have called these obstruction in the past but that's a try. Burns was never doing anything to stop that try. He was a mile away from Niu and the snail Oka was in no position to slide and stop the play. I don't think we've lost a game this year because of refs, I think it's our team plays dumb in patches and mistakes along with game management has cost us 2 games. We should be 3-0

 

[steeliz]

I'm a die hard dogs fan, I know the useless bunker and refs have called these obstruction in the past but that's a try. Burns was never doing anything to stop that try. He was a mile away from Niu and the snail Oka was in no position to slide and stop the play. I don't think we've lost a game this year because of refs, I think it's our team plays dumb in patches and mistakes along with game management has cost us 2 games. We should be 3-0

So you don't think refs favour certain teams?

That decision is consistent with other obstruction calls in the NRL?

 

[Typical dog]

So you don't think refs favour certain teams?

That decision is consistant with other obstruction calls in the NRL?

Yeah that was consistent to the Parra v Melbourne call when Moses pissed his pants and tried to milk obstruction.
Have they got it wrong in the past? Absolutely they have and will probably continue to stuff it because interpretation is allowed in rulings which opens up a can of worms.
I think the refs have been pretty good this year and teams like Cows and Dogs aren't losing because of bad calls.
Take our game with Brisbane for example. We had 60% possesion, ran for close to 2000m, had 20 offloads, only gave away 3 penalties, had Stagg butcher a try when just had to put it down, Burns get stripped in a weak hit up for a try. All this and people point at the obstruction call to why we lost.

 

[JayBee]

If he wasn’t playing the most penalised team of the last decade, I would agree.

But at times I do agree that refs fall into the narrative of “who should win”- and can often influence the result, potentially as a result of this bias (be it subconsciously or consciously)

 

[King Gus]

Yeah that was consistent to the Parra v Melbourne call when Moses pissed his pants and tried to milk obstruction.
Have they got it wrong in the past? Absolutely they have and will probably continue to stuff it because interpretation is allowed in rulings which opens up a can of worms.
I think the refs have been pretty good this year and teams like Cows and Dogs aren't losing because of bad calls.
Take our game with Brisbane for example. We had 60% possesion, ran for close to 2000m, had 20 offloads, only gave away 3 penalties, had Stagg butcher a try when just had to put it down, Burns get stripped in a weak hit up for a try. All this and people point at the obstruction call to why we lost.

The strip and the obstruction call is what made us lose. 2 big calls.

 

[Typical dog]

The strip and the obstruction call is what made us lose. 2 big calls.

It was a 1 on 1 strip. Fair enough if you dispute the obstruction, I think that these have been ruled against the attacking teams before. But that strip isn't a big call, it's a clear try.

 

[steeliz]

Yeah that was consistent to the Parra v Melbourne call when Moses pissed his pants and tried to milk obstruction.
Have they got it wrong in the past? Absolutely they have and will probably continue to stuff it because interpretation is allowed in rulings which opens up a can of worms.
I think the refs have been pretty good this year and teams like Cows and Dogs aren't losing because of bad calls.
Take our game with Brisbane for example. We had 60% possesion, ran for close to 2000m, had 20 offloads, only gave away 3 penalties, had Stagg butcher a try when just had to put it down, Burns get stripped in a weak hit up for a try. All this and people point at the obstruction call to why we lost.

Was it consistent with the Sharks game where a try was called back for obstruction and there was no contact at all?

 

[Typical dog]

Was it consistent with the Sharks game where a try was called back for obstruction and there was no contact at all?
View attachment 45103
View attachment 45105
View attachment 45107
View attachment 45108

That is a different obstruction all together, this is a traditional 'sheppard' as Kennedy runs behind his own player when he has the ball, in the dogs Brisbane game the ball was caught outside of the decoy runner so the rulings are completely different.
Take a look at the Melbourne parra obstruction call just before half time if you want to compare a similar decision.

 

[steeliz]

That is a different obstruction all together, this is a traditional 'sheppard' as Kennedy runs behind his own player when he has the ball, in the dogs Brisbane game the ball was caught outside of the decoy runner so the rulings are completely different.
Take a look at the Melbourne parra obstruction call just before half time if you want to compare a similar decision.

Seriously?

Obstructing is obstruction. It is about stopping a defender from getting to the player with the ball.

Our one was ruled not enough contact.

The Sharks one was no contact at all.

The sheppard is not a thing anymore. Hasn't been since the 90s.

If it was there would be 20 penalties a game.

 

[Typical dog]

What I'm saying is that they rule these decisions with a criteria. If the Broncos player caught the ball inside of the lead runner it would be deemed that he had the ball and ran behind his own player and would be no try. Kennedy had possession of the ball and ran behind his own player which was a no try.
I also think if Niu doesn't pass the ball straight away and runs himself through the gap between Burns and Oka it would be no try. That didn't happen.
I don't make the rules, nor do I agree with all things but looking at it with the letter of the law we can see how these decisions are made.

 

[Dogs4eva13]

What I am worried about is that refs are getting very trigger happy with the sin bin. Peachey on Thursday was very harsh. A number this weekend have also been very soft. I am starting to think NRL was not liking the amount of upsets/ lack of tries. Penalties weren’t working so told the refs to use the sin bin. A number of very soft sin bins last 2 weeks and it always seems to be the underdog getting binned.