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

[racin jason]

Todd Payten nailed a while back when he said the teams closer to the bottom of the ladder are not treated as equally as those near the top. It may be sub-conscious thing or it may be corrupt. The question has to be asked when so many close calls go against the same teams/clubs. Hopefully Ciraldo can put the spotlight on this and get some action on consistency. I hope, I'm not confident though.....

 

[InGusWeTrust]

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.

Yeah I reckon he played for it. Had milkman Soward written all over it the way he awkwardly stepped sideways into the ref.

 

[InGusWeTrust]

Every part of that looks like it was milked. He took the wrong option, turned and ran into the ref deliberately IMO.

I wouldn't want to be one of these refs. I assume that the bias is dictated by the gambling agencies. The new refs discretion rules began being implemented around when gambling agencies first signed on as sponsors. And refereeing got very bad very quickly. So I assume a lot of results are dictated to maximise their profit. I can't believe it's just bias based on position on the ladder which many think is the case. But someone is going to belt the living shit out of one of them one of these days or worse. It mightn't even be about their team being screwed. I'd imagine someone who's lost big money on the basis of shit calls will eventually arrange for some legs to be broken or worse.

Let’s just say there is no corruption at all ok? The simple fact that the NRL are so tightly connected to betting agencies just makes the whole thing stink. Why even allow that and the questions to be asked? They should have no affiliation whatsoever with any gambling agencies! Then there can be no suspicion.

 

[InGusWeTrust]

View attachment 104237

Yep, he got off very easily for that. I had forgotten that it was after Kiks had passed the ball, which makes it much worse. That’s the sort of hit that killed a player and was partly why the shoulder charge was outlawed. Then they give 2-3 weeks for it?! Pathetic.

 

[LordSidious66]

CC should also tell all the players when they drop the ball to lash out with the foot and make contact with the ball, as it will never be a knock on we'll just challenge the call and say we were going for a drop goal sir.

I would also run into the ref as well and challenge a try on the grounds of obstruction.

Sent from my SM-A235F using Tapatalk

 

[InGusWeTrust]

craig fitzgibbon has rocks in his head if he thinks trindall possibly could of have tackled kikau 5 metres out. Trindall doesn't have the springing of a leopard

Watch it again or look at the screenshots I posted. By the time Trindall corrected his run and stepped back towards Kikau, Kiks was 1-2 metres from the line. Even if he never ran behind the ref, good luck stopping him.
Far be it for the refs to use common sense though.

It’s almost like you can use your brain, like when Harry Grant was penalised for purposely passing into a Warriors player last night. Instead of getting the penalty, he was penalised. Wahs got 2 points for the penalty goal. That was a decent rule change to prevent milking of those types of penalties, but the problem happens when you have an almost identical incident that went the opposite way in a previous game this round. Think it was Tigers/Api yesterday. So one ref “knew” what Harry was thinking, while the other thought Api was innocent lmao.

 

[shaun5150]

Fucking spewing I didn’t get to watch the game, but hearing how much shit calls went against us makes me even more angry.
I’m glad CC came out and said something, cause we’ve never had a coach actually challenge the ref.

Go to NRL on Youtube. They put all the games on the next day

 

[wendog33]

Go to NRL on Youtube. They put all the games on the next day

Yes saw that last night

 

[TwinTurbo]

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..

How do we know that we are not?
How do we know that he wasn't spoken to back in November and he told us he is staying in Canbra?


Always a Bulldog

 

[Lost Dog]

It was as though the Sharks player was trying to find a way out of tackling Kikau using the ref as camouflage. I mean who could blame him?

 

[Magic Burton]

Watch it again or look at the screenshots I posted. By the time Trindall corrected his run and stepped back towards Kikau, Kiks was 1-2 metres from the line. Even if he never ran behind the ref, good luck stopping him.
Far be it for the refs to use common sense though.

It’s almost like you can use your brain, like when Harry Grant was penalised for purposely passing into a Warriors player last night. Instead of getting the penalty, he was penalised. Wahs got 2 points for the penalty goal. That was a decent rule change to prevent milking of those types of penalties, but the problem happens when you have an almost identical incident that went the opposite way in a previous game this round. Think it was Tigers/Api yesterday. So one ref “knew” what Harry was thinking, while the other thought Api was innocent lmao.

I like that milking rule change I thought it was a good penalty against Harry Grant.

 

[TwinTurbo]

Haven't for quite a while but is what it is. Now if you want to argue the ref fckd up - fair play. But he did. So the bunk decides whether the player was obstructed. He was and they did. So no try.

This is not hard. If the shoe was on the other foot and the try was given you'd be losing your shit more than now. Is what it is.

What you are missing (ignoring?) is that Trindall ran behind the ref, when he was fully entitled to run in front of the ref, he could have defended directly in front of the ref if he wanted. The ref didn't position himself in front of Trindall, Trindall chose to run behind the ref, that's his choice and he has to live with the consequences, he then doesn't get to claim obstruction.

The ref was an obstruction (we can debate forever about how much of an obstruction) but the relevant question is who caused the obstruction, there is only one answer, Trindall.


Always a Bulldog

 

[Philistine]

I like that milking rule change I thought it was a good penalty against Harry Grant.

If you cheat and it goes unnoticed. that is your good fortune, but, if you cheat and it gets picked up, there should be consequences. Players have been milking penalties for years and they either get rewarded for it or it is "play on". If the ref thinks a player is milking, that player should be carded and suspended for conduct contrary to the spirit of the game. It would stop overnight.

 

[Powerslide]

lol @ Fitzgibbons view of the Kikau “no try”

“I’d rather defend it better, but he got obstructed. How does he not? If he doesn’t get stopped then he runs forward and makes the tackle five metres before the try line,”

I'm seeing this as that if the ref is not there Trindall runs straight out to tackle Kiks, rather than running behind the Ref for an advantage.

 

[dogluva]

So, a player who uses the referee as an obstruction is rewarded with his team getting a crucial decision go their way and a player who pushes a referee out of the way so he has a chance of making a try saving tackle is in trouble? That incident was not penalised at the time when it was all kind of wrong....

Storm star facing ban over incident with match official — Judiciary

Storm star facing ban over incident with match official — Judiciary

www.foxsports.com.au

Storm playmaker Jahrome Hughes is facing a one match suspension after an incident with a match official during Melbourne’s 30-26 win over the Warriors.

The star halfback has been charged with grade one contrary conduct by the NRL judiciary following the 30-26 victory at AAMI Park.

Hughes will miss one match with an early guilty plea but risks a further game if he fights the charge and loses.


In the 58th minute of the match, the Kiwi star pushed over referee Chris Butler in attempt to save a try, but the incident was not penalised at the time.




A player who should have been sent from the field instead gets ten minutes and after the dust has settled is looking at a suspension? Then a player who slaps the chest of another is considered to have performed a dangerous tackle and is penalised for it?

Sharks enforcer suspended for ugly tackle that was initially missed by officials

Sharks enforcer suspended for ugly tackle that was initially missed by officials

www.foxsports.com.au

Sharks backrower Briton Nikora has been hit with a two-game suspension for an ugly tackle on Bulldogs star Viliame Kikau that got him binned on Friday nght.

Nikora was lucky not to be sent off in the sixth minute after rocking Kikau with a heavy and late hit to the head.

Strangely however, the foul play wasn’t picked up by the Bunker until the next set, almost a minute later, when referee Ziggy Przeklasa-Adamsk stopped play and called out Nikora.

 

[Benno Bulldog]

Looking how other codes fanbases protest against referees decisions is interesting… some absolute cringe but this game was a standout for bias.

 

[Haddaway]

The ref had a shocker. The dogs are building, not world beaters but definitely a huge improvement on last year. A win is not far away.
Lucky for me my happiness or self worth are not reliant on the Bulldogs winning football games. It helps to see and appreciate the long game the club is playing. Poor souls in need immediate success.

I'm nearly 47 now I need success soon lol.

I want to remain positive but it's hard, I understand why many can't stay positive. We've already been waiting a long time.

 

[Berries]

How do we know that we are not?
How do we know that he wasn't spoken to back in November and he told us he is staying in Canbra?


Always a Bulldog

Doesn’t have an injury so we wouldn’t be speaking to him

 

[wendog33]

I'm nearly 47 now I need success soon lol.

I want to remain positive but it's hard, I understand why many can't stay positive. We've already been waiting a long time.

Some supporters are in their 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's even 90's I guess. Some unwell or in delicate health.

Not winning a premiership is one thing, and winning one is relatively rare, but this state the club is in.. and for the past 9 years at least, makes most supporters lose heart and despair that there appears many more years of waiting for an entertaining, winning Bulldog first grade team, with players playing outstanding footy entralling the crowds who come to watch them.

Hoping the tide has finally turned towards this goal.

 

[Doogie]

What you are missing (ignoring?) is that Trindall ran behind the ref, when he was fully entitled to run in front of the ref, he could have defended directly in front of the ref if he wanted. The ref didn't position himself in front of Trindall, Trindall chose to run behind the ref, that's his choice and he has to live with the consequences, he then doesn't get to claim obstruction.

The ref was an obstruction (we can debate forever about how much of an obstruction) but the relevant question is who caused the obstruction, there is only one answer, Trindall.


Always a Bulldog

So how exactly did he run behind the ref if he collided with the ref? Are you saying the ref collided with him then because Ziggy was moving backwards into the in goal. Well, thats an obstruction anyways because Kiks was going in that direction. Or are you saying he should have run around the front of the ref who was moving backwards? If he cannot go A to B because of the ref - thats still obstruction.

If I'm Trindall and 80kg wringing wet and see Kiks coming at me from 8m out, I'm not charging him to tackle him. I'm trying to get in front of Kiks and tie up the ball.

Back at work today and spoke to a range of others supporters from other teams about the weekend. To a man they reckon we were pretty unlucky with the Nikora non send off. No one felt that this was a wrong decision.

But thats cool. I've watched that 3 times and haven't changed my view. The NRL does not support your view. Not one commentator supports your view. Not one supporter from another team I know supports your view (and I left the sharkies boys out of it). As I said before, plenty to complain about in this game but this one, pretty on point with the rules. 100% on the ref. But its not against the rules.

And, in case we want to go there, you want to compare that to the storm, that was more interesting. Hughes was obstructed but no doubt initiated the contact and no try was scored on that play. So the bunker is not involved and per the rules, could be argued that it never affected play as Hughes made the tackle. So play on.

So not missing anything or ignoring anything. Some spend their entire life here arguing the rules are not followed. He we have the rules being followed and people are still arguing. Maybe they just like to argue.