The Shepherd

saundo1982
Member
Member
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri 25 Feb, 2011 1:08 pm

The Shepherd

Post by saundo1982 » Sun 19 Apr, 2015 4:24 pm

The ridiculous part of this decision is that I bet the referee wouldn't have had the balls to blow a penalty if brooks was tackled even 1cm short of the line it would have been 6 again zero tackle.

Do away with the video red bring in the captain challenge make the referee make the call live on the run if either captain thinks the call made is wrong challenge it.

Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0


User avatar
underdog
Member
Member
Posts: 5324
Joined: Tue 27 Apr, 2010 5:25 pm
Location: Gold Coast

Post by underdog » Sun 19 Apr, 2015 4:24 pm

MacDougall wrote:Not as bad as the fact they called the last on the 4th tackle in the second last set of six.
Yeah I thought that too on the fly - the scoreboard thought it was only the 4th tackle as well - Will have to rewind and check that out.
Image

User avatar
underdog
Member
Member
Posts: 5324
Joined: Tue 27 Apr, 2010 5:25 pm
Location: Gold Coast

Post by underdog » Sun 19 Apr, 2015 4:27 pm

The rule itself isn't my concern.

It's the CONSISTENCY of how it's enforced. That is was pisses me off the most with decisions like that.

Farah did the wrong thing, however this kind of play is overlooked FOREVER AND A DAY and happens easily 15-20 times a game, and is never ever pulled up.

The consistency of the referees has been flat out the worst I've seen it in years. Each of the close games this round have been decided on bad decisions.
Image

tig_prmz
Member
Member
Posts: 8029
Joined: Sat 03 Oct, 2009 10:32 pm

Post by tig_prmz » Sun 19 Apr, 2015 4:32 pm

MacDougall wrote:Not as bad as the fact they called the last on the 4th tackle in the second last set of six.
i was going off at that.. dad told me to calm down. lawrence knew it wasnt last tackle but the idiot said 5th and last.
My Round 1 Team 2018

1. lolo 2. noffa 3. suli 4. milne 5. fonua
6. reynolds 7. brooks
8. packer 9. ET 10. Twal
11. McQuen 12. Lawrence 13. Eiso
14. Matulino 15. McIllwrick 16. Sue 17. Aloiai
18. Marsters 19. Benji 20. Grant 21. K Naiqama
Next: Liddle, MCK, Felise, MWZ, Thompson, Rochow, Gamble

User avatar
westTAHger
Member
Member
Posts: 4771
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 3:07 pm
Location: With the Groovy Ghoulies

Post by westTAHger » Sun 19 Apr, 2015 4:33 pm

Might want to also check the goal line drop out, Blake Austin did in the 2nd half. he clearly was in front of the tryline when he kicked it.

Regardless of theses dodgy decisions which went against wests-tigers, with a lead of 22 -0, we shouldn't being looking to the officials to use as a scape goat.

wests-tigers had the lead.
wests-tigers could not sustain the lead.
Image
Basil, our rescue dog, is wondering when wests tigers will win 25 - 18 :D


southerntiger
Member
Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sun 12 Jul, 2009 6:24 pm
Location: Sydney

Post by southerntiger » Sun 19 Apr, 2015 4:34 pm

gallagher wrote:You can't run behind you're own player.the obstruction rule is a different rule
All part of the same rule mate - Obstruction. The only reference to running behind your own player is in the Referees Guidelines not the rulebook. Even in the Referees Guidelines it is a requirement that an advantage be gained.

if it was simply a matter of running behind your own player, as the rule used to be, there would be about 45 obstruction penalties each game.

gallagher
Member
Member
Posts: 5716
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 1:18 pm

Post by gallagher » Sun 19 Apr, 2015 4:38 pm

southerntiger wrote:
gallagher wrote:You can't run behind you're own player.the obstruction rule is a different rule
All part of the same rule mate - Obstruction. The only reference to running behind your own player is in the Referees Guidelines not the rulebook. Even in the Referees Guidelines it is a requirement that an advantage be gained.

if it was simply a matter of running behind your own player, as the rule used to be, there would be about 45 obstruction penalties each game.
Do you remember the Justin hodges try in origin a couple of years ago? No one was obstructed but the refs boss came out and said it should not have been a try. You just can't do it.

southerntiger
Member
Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sun 12 Jul, 2009 6:24 pm
Location: Sydney

Post by southerntiger » Sun 19 Apr, 2015 4:40 pm

I remember Harrigan said it was fine. So does the internet

http://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/state-o ... 6418264937

tsjonathan
Member
Member
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun 21 Mar, 2010 6:04 pm

Post by tsjonathan » Sun 19 Apr, 2015 4:41 pm

MacDougall wrote:Not as bad as the fact they called the last on the 4th tackle in the second last set of six.
Was that when Moses passed to Lawrence? Everyone around me were all perplexed

User avatar
dazza65
Member
Member
Posts: 885
Joined: Mon 28 Feb, 2011 12:45 pm
Location: Sydney

Post by dazza65 » Sun 19 Apr, 2015 4:45 pm

Rub of the green was TOTALLY against us today hugely
However good teams don't loose after leading 22-0 at home
Therefore, at the moment, we are not a good team.

Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0
----------------------------------------------
Tigers?!? - Driven mad since - 1969-201?

gallagher
Member
Member
Posts: 5716
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 1:18 pm

Post by gallagher » Sun 19 Apr, 2015 4:45 pm

southerntiger wrote:I remember Harrigan said it was fine. So does the internet

http://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/state-o ... 6418264937
I remember wrong then Neither was a try in my opinion. Harigan also thought Bruce mcguire shepherded a raisers player in 89. Good judge.

Benjirific
Member
Member
Posts: 440
Joined: Thu 08 Sep, 2011 5:27 pm

Post by Benjirific » Sun 19 Apr, 2015 4:49 pm

It wasn't an obstruction, it was shepherd so correct call - as has been said before, the issue is the consistency. 2 hrs before in the NYC it was fine when Brenko Lee ran behind two players and straight into a hole, but this isn't ok?

gallagher
Member
Member
Posts: 5716
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 1:18 pm

Post by gallagher » Sun 19 Apr, 2015 5:00 pm

Inconsistancy is a problem but why bring that up when they make a correct call?

whippet75
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu 09 Sep, 2010 10:53 pm

Post by whippet75 » Sun 19 Apr, 2015 5:00 pm

saundo1982 wrote:The ridiculous part of this decision is that I bet the referee wouldn't have had the balls to blow a penalty if brooks was tackled even 1cm short of the line it would have been 6 again zero tackle.

Do away with the video red bring in the captain challenge make the referee make the call live on the run if either captain thinks the call made is wrong challenge it.

Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0
Exactly. If it's a penalty, then blow the whistle and call it. He let Robbie play on, there was plenty of time to pull that up before Brooks scores.

Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0

gallagher
Member
Member
Posts: 5716
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 1:18 pm

Post by gallagher » Sun 19 Apr, 2015 5:01 pm

whippet75 wrote:
saundo1982 wrote:The ridiculous part of this decision is that I bet the referee wouldn't have had the balls to blow a penalty if brooks was tackled even 1cm short of the line it would have been 6 again zero tackle.

Do away with the video red bring in the captain challenge make the referee make the call live on the run if either captain thinks the call made is wrong challenge it.

Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0
Exactly. If it's a penalty, then blow the whistle and call it. He let Robbie play on, there was plenty of time to pull that up before Brooks scores.

Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0
So was it a try in your opinion?

saundo1982
Member
Member
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri 25 Feb, 2011 1:08 pm

Post by saundo1982 » Sun 19 Apr, 2015 7:09 pm

gallagher wrote:
whippet75 wrote:
saundo1982 wrote:The ridiculous part of this decision is that I bet the referee wouldn't have had the balls to blow a penalty if brooks was tackled even 1cm short of the line it would have been 6 again zero tackle.

Do away with the video red bring in the captain challenge make the referee make the call live on the run if either captain thinks the call made is wrong challenge it.

Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0
Exactly. If it's a penalty, then blow the whistle and call it. He let Robbie play on, there was plenty of time to pull that up before Brooks scores.

Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0
So was it a try in your opinion?

Yep,

Just went through the rule book and cannot find any reference to a Shepard in it. The closest is referenced as obstruction, but this has an explanation of:

Obstruction: is the illegal act of impeding an opponent who does not have the ball.

I don't believe any players were illegally impeded from
A: making a tackle on Farah
B: taking control of the ball that was kicked
C: stopping Brooks from scoring.

http://www.foxsportspulse.com/assoc_pag ... D=33570777

This link should take you to a page scroll to the bottom and select the option ARL RULES BOOK 2015. As I said I cannot find a reference to a Shepard only obstruction.

Happy to corrected if someone can find it in there.

Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0

Newtown
Member
Member
Posts: 5727
Joined: Fri 28 Sep, 2012 8:40 am

Post by Newtown » Sun 19 Apr, 2015 7:10 pm

Steve Gee, WWOS
16:05 AEST Sun Apr 19 2015

Wests Tigers were denied what would have been a match-winning try after the referees controversially ruled an obstruction play before Luke Brooks pounced on a Robbie Farah grubber kick in the final minutes of their clash with Canberra. With Canberra clinging to a 24-22 lead, Farah crabbed across field close to the Raiders line before putting in a grubber kick in the 76th minute. The kick was fumbled on the line by Raiders fullback Jack Wighton with Brooks pouncing on the Steeden to score. But referee Henry Perenara ruled no try and sent the decision for review from video referee Matt Cecchin, who took one look at the replay before agreeing with the onfield whistblower.

The decision was based on the fact Farah ran behind Tigers decoy runner Keith Galloway before putting in the kick. However, Galloway ran through the defensive line and did not impede any Canberra defenders.

Fox sports commentators Andrew Voss and Braith Anasta were stunned by the decision, with both feeling the try should have been awarded. "Hang on a second. Am I looking at a different replay?" asked Voss, before Anasta chimed in: "He's taken no one out." Analysing the decision, Anasta added: "That's the old fashioned shepherd. They've gone back to the old school…(where) as soon as you run behind one of your teammates it's a penalty, but time and time again you see this let go."

To make matters worse for the Tigers, the Raiders then responded with winger Jordan Rapana crashing over for a converted try in the 79th minute to give them a 30-22 win

saundo1982
Member
Member
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri 25 Feb, 2011 1:08 pm

Post by saundo1982 » Sun 19 Apr, 2015 7:13 pm

saundo1982 wrote:
gallagher wrote:
"whippet75" wrote:
"saundo1982" wrote:The ridiculous part of this decision is that I bet the referee wouldn't have had the balls to blow a penalty if brooks was tackled even 1cm short of the line it would have been 6 again zero tackle.

Do away with the video red bring in the captain challenge make the referee make the call live on the run if either captain thinks the call made is wrong challenge it.

Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0
Exactly. If it's a penalty, then blow the whistle and call it. He let Robbie play on, there was plenty of time to pull that up before Brooks scores.

Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0
So was it a try in your opinion?

Yep,

Just went through the rule book and cannot find any reference to a Shepard in it. The closest is referenced as obstruction, but this has an explanation of:

Obstruction: is the illegal act of impeding an opponent who does not have the ball.

I don't believe any players were illegally impeded from
A: making a tackle on Farah
B: taking control of the ball that was kicked
C: stopping Brooks from scoring.

http://www.foxsportspulse.com/assoc_pag ... D=33570777

This link should take you to a page scroll to the bottom and select the option ARL RULES BOOK 2015. As I said I cannot find a reference to a Shepard only obstruction.

Happy to corrected if someone can find it in there.

Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0
And before you jump up and down saying the link is for mini or mod footy click the link and the first page has NRL interpretations of the game so relates to international and NRL premiership games.

Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0

Post Reply