My first live game of the season….

tig_prmz said:
@stryker 69 , do you know if the ref blew his whistle once Laurie was tackled? Did he declare game over? If not, don't think we can do anything.
Click to expand...
It happened not far from where I was standing.
He never blew his whistle. It seemed they were in his ear immediately and he was nodding…it was as if he was being told what to do. He walked straight over to the Cowboys, spoke for 5 seconds and then called for bunker review.
Tigers players were swearing their heads off delux. I’m surprised we haven’t heard more on that lol…
 
Has anyone mentioned the first try the Cowboys scored?
When Robson made his break, Drinkwater was trying to position himself in support. From my angle, I was watching from behind where the angles the chasers and support were running were clear, he grabbed Hastings jersey and pushed Tamou over. The ball then went to Deardon and he again tried to push through in support, where he took Brooks out.
I was stunned that wasn’t reviewed. That was far more of a penalty than the one at the end.
 
stryker 69 said:
It happened not far from where I was standing.
He never blew his whistle. It seemed they were in his ear immediately and he was nodding…it was as if he was being told what to do. He walked straight over to the Cowboys, spoke for 5 seconds and then called for bunker review.
Tigers players were swearing their heads off delux. I’m surprised we haven’t heard more on that lol…
Click to expand...
He did blow a whistle... Not full time type extended whistle more a stop.play type quick. Blast.... Yiure right in it seemed he was being advised by Klein... Red hot
 
innsaneink said:
He did blow a whistle... Not full time type extended whistle more a stop.play type quick. Blast.... Yiure right in it seemed he was being advised by Klein... Red hot
Click to expand...
If the full time whistle wasn't blown, we don't have a leg to stand on in terms of legal action then.
 
nrlsurvivor said:
@stryker 69 when douehi hit the post with his goal kick did you notice time expire at the ground? On foxtel, the clock ticked over to zero before the ref called time off, then they put 1 second back on the clock.
Click to expand...
To be honest, I’m sure there was time still there, but I was a bit pissed… Everyone around me was saying ‘we’ll get one last crack’. I heard no mention of the clock having run down.
 
tig_prmz said:
If the full time whistle wasn't blown, we don't have a leg to stand on in terms of legal action then.
Click to expand...
Of course we do.

If it was not full time, then it's play on and Tigers play the ball, tackle 2. Why else did the ref stop play? He didn't rule a penalty. If he in fact ruled a penalty, then Tigers would have had the right of challenge (noting of course the bunker would have denied the challenge, but making the point that Cowboys had no right to challenge).

Otherwise the argument is, one of two diabolical outcomes:
(1) Refs allowed a captain's challenge when there was no stoppage in play.

This is clearly and blatantly against the rules, and I guarantee they will continue to NOT permit challenges in open play for the rest of the season.

They made exactly these clarifications back in April when Toby Sexton gave away an intentional penalty to challenge a missed knock-on, which the referee allowed, then Annesley released a ruling that this was an incorrect application of the rule and that players cannot intentionally force breaks in play to compel a captain's challenge on a play-on ruling.

(2) Or even worse: that the bunker intervened in the millisecond prior to FT, to cause the referee to halt play, which then permitted Townsend the opportunity to challenge a call which the bunker had already intimated that it would give.

In other words, the NRL may attempt to argue that the stoppage in play was caused by the ref on behalf of the bunker. This is still not the way the rule is written, and again per above, if the referee or bunker sought to intervene on an illegal play, the right of challenge actually falls to Tigers as negative recipients of that call. So again there is no captain's challenge permission to Cowboys.

Either it's a tackle, in which case it's play on for Tigers, or it's a penalty called by the ref /bunker, in which case Tigers can challenge the penalty. There is no avenue for Cowboys to call a challenge on a decision not made by the referee, and the "stop in play" is seemingly only produced by intervention of the bunker in a possible infraction, which again has not been ruled on.

Unless we are now entering a new version of the rule where the bunker can intervene in any play, to "encourage" one of the captains to raise a challenge, likely with an indication that the challenge would be deemed successful. That would be like the reverse of the ref's standard "well you can challenge if you want", which typically discourages the captain from challenging, because in this case bunker intervention would forewarn you that there is something worth challenging.

And as a point I made in another thread, this now incentivises all clubs in desperate or late-game situations to cause or attempt to cause an infraction, to encourage bunker or referee intervention which will then take a decision upstairs. And every close match from now on ends with a captain's challenge from the desperate side, trying to use any mechanism to regain possession for a last-ditch effort, and every team retains their challenges until the death, when they can be deployed like foul-related time-outs in basketball.
 
On the game itself, how good were Nanai and Laurie?
In a game where a lot of guys played well, those two were head and shoulders best on the field. Nanai has amazing hands and understands how to position himself for anything. Everytime we stuffed up, he was there. Laurie played like the Cowboys run his dog over. That run he did in the first half where he broke the line and then ran over 3 of their cover guys was outstanding aggression.

Also how good was it to see that the move that should have won us the game featured all of our playmakers?
Hastings to Brooks to Doueihi to Laurie…cut them to shreds.
More of that please.
 
jirskyr said:
Of course we do.

If it was not full time, then it's play on and Tigers play the ball, tackle 2. Why else did the ref stop play? He didn't rule a penalty. If he in fact ruled a penalty, then Tigers would have had the right of challenge (noting of course the bunker would have denied the challenge, but making the point that Cowboys had no right to challenge).

Otherwise the argument is, one of two diabolical outcomes:
(1) Refs allowed a captain's challenge when there was no stoppage in play.

This is clearly and blatantly against the rules, and I guarantee they will continue to NOT permit challenges in open play for the rest of the season.

They made exactly these clarifications back in April when Toby Sexton gave away an intentional penalty to challenge a missed knock-on, which the referee allowed, then Annesley released a ruling that this was an incorrect application of the rule and that players cannot intentionally force breaks in play to compel a captain's challenge on a play-on ruling.

(2) Or even worse: that the bunker intervened in the millisecond prior to FT, to cause the referee to halt play, which then permitted Townsend the opportunity to challenge a call which the bunker had already intimated that it would give.

In other words, the NRL may attempt to argue that the stoppage in play was caused by the ref on behalf of the bunker. This is still not the way the rule is written, and again per above, if the referee or bunker sought to intervene on an illegal play, the right of challenge actually falls to Tigers as negative recipients of that call. So again there is no captain's challenge permission to Cowboys.

Either it's a tackle, in which case it's play on for Tigers, or it's a penalty called by the ref /bunker, in which case Tigers can challenge the penalty. There is no avenue for Cowboys to call a challenge on a decision not made by the referee, and the "stop in play" is seemingly only produced by intervention of the bunker in a possible infraction, which again has not been ruled on.

Unless we are now entering a new version of the rule where the bunker can intervene in any play, to "encourage" one of the captains to raise a challenge, likely with an indication that the challenge would be deemed successful. That would be like the reverse of the ref's standard "well you can challenge if you want", which typically discourages the captain from challenging, because in this case bunker intervention would forewarn you that there is something worth challenging.

And as a point I made in another thread, this now incentivises all clubs in desperate or late-game situations to cause or attempt to cause an infraction, to encourage bunker or referee intervention which will then take a decision upstairs. And every close match from now on ends with a captain's challenge from the desperate side, trying to use any mechanism to regain possession for a last-ditch effort, and every team retains their challenges until the death, when they can be deployed like foul-related time-outs in basketball.
Click to expand...
Mate the cowboys still had a challenge and they used it for the escort, that's it.
Nothing will happen, just an apology 🥺 It sucks I know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 320 (members: 4, guests: 316)
Back
Top