LordSidious66
Kennel Legend
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2011
- Messages
- 9,697
- Reaction score
- 6,694
I wonder how well we could have gone these past 8 years if we were reffed fairly?
Sent from my SM-A235F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-A235F using Tapatalk
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.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.
Few 11th and 12th instead of 14th maybeI wonder how well we could have gone these past 8 years if we were reffed fairly?
Sent from my SM-A235F using Tapatalk
That was a shocking call. It was clear as day Hughes made a decision to take the lead runner.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.
Not much point arguing your point with people that only want to see the negative mate.So the shark last try wasn’t a knock on?
Kiks didn’t score?
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?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.
People actually thought CC small little angry face was going to work. Needed to be more direct and risk himself copping a ban. But alasThe 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.’
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.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?
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,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
awesome - its a font size war.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
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.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?
Thanks. Impartial means obstruction by something not covered by the rules and therefore mutual infringement. Done deal.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.
"If we allow that try to be disallowed on that basis we will have defenders contacting referees every day of the week".
Nah, I wouldn'tYes you would.
You'd take it like a champ.Nah, I wouldn't
Exactly - so its mutual infringement and a play the ball because the ref fckd up the play. Simples.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.
Not true at all.Exactly - so its mutual infringement and a play the ball because the ref fckd up the play. Simples.