Graham Annesley discusses Dogs v Manly decisions

D.O.W.

Kennel Addict
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
5,526
Reaction score
9,667
The Andrew Voss commentary was priceless, he didn’t agree with the penalty, defended the Dogs on it and suggested Stimson wear a wig next week in the hope of getting it yanked to get a penalty! He’s random as Vossy!
 

dogluva

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
17,562
Reaction score
8,150
Did he bother to comment on the obvious obstruction that got missed before the controversial try?
If we listen to his dribble about the lost ball try, according to Grahame it is because it was against the Dogs, whom we support that makes us think that it was an obstruction when to everyone else it wasn't...
 

Psycho Doggie

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Mar 25, 2014
Messages
17,850
Reaction score
25,355
If we listen to his dribble about the lost ball try, according to Grahame it is because it was against the Dogs, whom we support that makes us think that it was an obstruction when to everyone else it wasn't...
That is a theory that can actually be put to the test. Assemble a bunch of neutrals, show them the footage, and survey. If the result is 50/50, fair enough.
 

liljohny

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Messages
2,319
Reaction score
3,436
This collection of officials are useless. Absolutely useless.

The game really needs Bill Harrigan back involved, more to the point, as boss of the referees.
 

dogluva

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
17,562
Reaction score
8,150
Dog of a decision
Manly probably still would have gone on to beat wooden spooners Canterbury regardless of the refereeing leg-ups they were given on Sunday, but it still doesn’t excuse the poor officiating.
Not only did the bunker stuff up in awarding Tom Trbojevic's try early in the second half, the on-field ref missed a blatant obstruction in the lead-up that should have led to a Bulldogs penalty.
Instead, the Sea Eagles collected six points.
The hair pull penalty on Marty Taupau was almost as laughable. That cost the Bulldogs a further two points.
Manly fans can point to the John Aloiai sin-binning as justification the poor decisions went both ways, but at least it didn't cost the Sea Eagles on the scoreboard.
As Canterbury coach Trent Barrett freely admitted, his side isn't good enough to overcome such dud calls.
It only adds weight to the game's conspiracy theorists who believe teams at the bottom of the table get a raw deal at the hands of officials.
 

steeliz

Kennel Addict
Joined
Sep 8, 2012
Messages
7,088
Reaction score
7,817
not sure if this should be under the match day game thread? His comments relating to the game start at about the 17th min mark. Essentially the penalty against Stimson for pulling hair was correct and Turbo’s try was correctly awarded. ‍

"Is hard for me to say that's a wrong decision."/"The criticism doesn't match up to the reality."


You can tell he is a former politician.

He can talk complete shit without cracking a smile.
 

c-b-b

Kennel Addict
Premium Member
Gilded
Joined
Apr 23, 2014
Messages
7,386
Reaction score
12,689
The hair pulling penalty is probably enough of a reason for Knockonbor to be in the side. Surely his hair gets us a penalty or 2 per year (ignoring the thousand handling errors he'll come up with)
I can’t recall which game but I’m sure someone pulled his hair and it was worse than what happened yesterday, of course nothing happened as a result.
 

Typical dog

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 22, 2017
Messages
2,101
Reaction score
4,438
On the Turbo try, why doesn't Annesely refer to the rule that if you lose grip of the ball the only way to ground it successfully is to regrip the ball before it touches the ground. Turbo clearly lost possession and didn't regrip the ball.... It's clear as day if you refer to the rules. He isn't applying the rule because it points to a wrong decision
 
Top