NRL admits bunker mistake

[JRDee]

Well they admitted it was wrong so let’s take it to court somebody has to have the balls to stand up to them or it’s just going to keep happening . If Lee doesnt have the balls to stand up for the members and the supporters of this club he can pack his bags and join McGuire .

 

[BrissieTiger67]

Complete garbage...we've all seen some questionable calls in the bunker

I think that's a pretty good explanation:

1. First whistle is always to stop play as the ref was told the time has elapsed, then usually the second whistle will indicate game over.
2. The captain's challenge was done after the first whistle and the second whistle was never blown so it is considered a 'stoppage' but game isn't over until the ref blows the second whistle.

As for the call itself, when I saw it in normal speed, I thought it was a 50/50. The more replays suggested it may have been a 40-60. Definitely not enough to overturn the decision.

No issues with the process IMO, definitely a bit of gamesmanship and smartness by Townsend/Feldt.

What was the challenge on? I have no issue the bunker in the refs ear saying we should take a look at this for penalty. But what is the formal captain's challenge on?

It's just an appeal like has been in the game for probably 100years right?

 

[jirskyr]

Annesley's explanation is completely inadequate. He is now saying it is okay to challenge calls that aren't made? There was no call, what is the captain challenging? Just seeking clarification, "Challenges will not be permitted where the referee allows play to proceed". So how are they able to challenge? Play was allowed to proceed and then the game ended, right?

Well he's re-writing the interpretation of the text, in my opinion.

I watched first half of Annesley's presser and Chammas (I think it is) presses him on how a challenge was awarded when no decision was made. Annesley says "there was a structured restart - the penalty" and Chammas says "yeah the bunker awarded that, but prior to that the referee just says "held", so where is the structured restart before the player raises the challenge?"

Annesley then says "look we can debate the semantics about this all day, but you will not find a black and white written interpretation that covers every incident, including yesterday".

So contrary to what 100% of fans and players have believed the past 2.5 years of captain's challenge, you can in fact challenge any play - not just a ref's decision - any play that finishes in an "end of play" or, in their words, "a structured restart".

This means you can challenge any try and the final play before any of half-time or full-time, regardless of whether or not there has been an indiscretion.

It also asks - what exactly qualifies as a structured restart? Kicks that go dead? Touch-finders? Can you challenge the play leading up to any time the ball exits the field? Are we all to now become experts on what "structured restarts" are and are not?

This therefore means any team behind by a small margin will challenge the final play of 100% of matches, because the NRL has just confirmed that there does not need to be an indiscretion to justify a challenge. If you run your final play, throw the ball out the back, put it on the toe, if it bounces around the place... if the opposition ends up with the footy and the ref calls FT, you are within your rights to challenge that entire play, so long as you have a reason that you can identify, that now compels the video ref to review the entire play back to the previous PTB.

What boggles my mind is how the NRL cannot see far enough ahead to understand the implications of what they are saying. In my profession, a significant amount of what I do is risk-management and interpretation of protocols. What this means is I am given written guidelines / instructions and part of my job is to predict the risks, the frequently-asked-questions, the inconsistencies, the probably outcomes of those instructions.

The NRL has to do the same thing, they have to think very long and hard about the implications of 16 teams, 16 coaches and some 400 players who will do anything to exploit a loophole.

And I guarantee you now, 95% of matches that conclude, so long as the losing side has a challenge, they will challenge the final "hectic" play just in case there was some unobserved infringement that might be picked up. You could say "I challenge that there was a knock-on in that play", but then technically speaking, if the bunker observes a penalisable infringement they need to blow that penalty, even if they were directed to look for knock-ons?

It's an absolute pandora's box. Teams will also now save their challenges for these last-ditch hail mary challenges.

They'll also challenge tries, which result in a structured restart, even if awarded by the ref. Because the bunker looks at the final moments of the try, but I am pretty sure the bunker does not go all the way back to the PTB to check for every possible infringement.

 

[Sully]

Surely the circumstances/criteria for a captains challenge have to be in place before the challenge, not because of the outcome of challenge, and that wasn’t the situation in this game. There was no penalty or subsequent restart as a precursor to the challenge (sorry posted this before elsewhere)

Agreed they could have challenged if the clock had run out and would have lost. The Referee would have had to penalise the Tigers for an escort and we could have challenged that ruling, however we would have lost in retrospect and then get told it was wrong and expect all to be forgiven. It is not and I am still angry 23 hours later.

 

[tig_prmz]

Complete garbage...we've all seen some questionable calls in the bunker

What was the challenge on? I have no issue the bunker in the refs ear saying we should take a look at this for penalty. But what is the formal captain's challenge on?

It's just an appeal like has been in the game for probably 100years right?

I don't have an answer for that because I guess "captain's challenge" is the wrong phrase there. The captain wanted the bunker to review the play as there was a stoppage in the game. Although I do get what you're saying- can't "challenge" a no-call. There will be a couple of rule changes from this I feel.

 

[tig_prmz]

Well he's re-writing the interpretation of the text, in my opinion.

I watched first half of Annesley's presser and Chammas (I think it is) presses him on how a challenge was awarded when no decision was made. Annesley says "there was a structured restart - the penalty" and Chammas says "yeah the bunker awarded that, but prior to that the referee just says "held", so where is the structured restart before the player raises the challenge?"

Annesley then says "look we can debate the semantics about this all day, but you will not find a black and white written interpretation that covers every incident, including yesterday".

So contrary to what 100% of fans and players have believed the past 2.5 years of captain's challenge, you can in fact challenge any play - not just a ref's decision - any play that finishes in an "end of play" or, in their words, "a structured restart".

This means you can challenge any try and the final play before any of half-time or full-time, regardless of whether or not there has been an indiscretion.

This therefore means any team behind by a small margin will challenge the final play of 100% of matches, because the NRL has just confirmed that there does not need to be an indiscretion to justify a challenge. If you run your final play, throw the ball out the back, put it on the toe, if it bounces around the place... if the opposition ends up with the footy and the ref calls FT, you are within your rights to challenge that entire play, so long as you have a reason that you can identify, that now compels the video ref to review the entire play back to the previous PTB.

What boggles my mind is how the NRL cannot see far enough ahead to understand the implications of what they are saying. In my profession, a significant amount of what I do is risk-management and interpretation of protocols. What this means is I am given written guidelines / instructions and part of my job is to predict the risks, the frequently-asked-questions, the inconsistencies, the probably outcomes of those instructions.

The NRL has to do the same thing, they have to think very long and hard about the implications of 16 teams, 16 coaches and some 400 players who will do anything to exploit a loophole.

And I guarantee you now, 95% of matches that conclude, so long as the losing side has a challenge, they will challenge the final "hectic" play just in case there was some unobserved infringement that might be picked up. You could say "I challenge that there was a knock-on in that play", but then technically speaking, if the bunker observes a penalisable infringement they need to blow that penalty, even if they were directed to look for knock-ons?

It's an absolute pandora's box. Teams will also now save their challenges for these last-ditch hail mary challenges.

They'll also challenge tries, which result in a structured restart, even if awarded by the ref. Because the bunker looks at the final moments of the try, but I am pretty sure the bunker does not go all the way back to the PTB to check for every possible infringement.

Yeh, I can imagine every team challenging on the last play in close games. Then the Bunker will review the entire play. Imagine a team is doing a hail mary play from their half way and they find a defender touched an attacking player and the attacked player falls down.

They'll need to tighten this rule up.

 

[BrissieTiger67]

Agreed they could have challenged if the clock had run out and would have lost. The Referee would have had to penalise the Tigers for an escort and we could have challenged that ruling, however we would have lost in retrospect and then get told it was wrong and expect all to be forgiven. It is not and I am still angry 23 hours later.

Yep totally agree, we should have been able to challenge that penalty and they should have gone through the excersise of relooking at it, no doubt come to the same wrong decision, but at least that would have made sense...idiots

 

[cktiger]

You can challenge when there is a stoppage. The ref stops the play with first whistle, then ends the game with the second. The second whistle wasn't blown.

I don't agree , but even if you were correct you only have 10 seconds to challenge...not 26 seconds.

 

[Newtown]

Well he's re-writing the interpretation of the text, in my opinion.

I watched first half of Annesley's presser and Chammas (I think it is) presses him on how a challenge was awarded when no decision was made. Annesley says "there was a structured restart - the penalty" and Chammas says "yeah the bunker awarded that, but prior to that the referee just says "held", so where is the structured restart before the player raises the challenge?"

Annesley then says "look we can debate the semantics about this all day, but you will not find a black and white written interpretation that covers every incident, including yesterday".

So contrary to what 100% of fans and players have believed the past 2.5 years of captain's challenge, you can in fact challenge any play - not just a ref's decision - any play that finishes in an "end of play" or, in their words, "a structured restart".

This means you can challenge any try and the final play before any of half-time or full-time, regardless of whether or not there has been an indiscretion.

It also asks - what exactly qualifies as a structured restart? Kicks that go dead? Touch-finders? Can you challenge the play leading up to any time the ball exits the field? Are we all to now become experts on what "structured restarts" are and are not?

This therefore means any team behind by a small margin will challenge the final play of 100% of matches, because the NRL has just confirmed that there does not need to be an indiscretion to justify a challenge. If you run your final play, throw the ball out the back, put it on the toe, if it bounces around the place... if the opposition ends up with the footy and the ref calls FT, you are within your rights to challenge that entire play, so long as you have a reason that you can identify, that now compels the video ref to review the entire play back to the previous PTB.

What boggles my mind is how the NRL cannot see far enough ahead to understand the implications of what they are saying. In my profession, a significant amount of what I do is risk-management and interpretation of protocols. What this means is I am given written guidelines / instructions and part of my job is to predict the risks, the frequently-asked-questions, the inconsistencies, the probably outcomes of those instructions.

The NRL has to do the same thing, they have to think very long and hard about the implications of 16 teams, 16 coaches and some 400 players who will do anything to exploit a loophole.

And I guarantee you now, 95% of matches that conclude, so long as the losing side has a challenge, they will challenge the final "hectic" play just in case there was some unobserved infringement that might be picked up. You could say "I challenge that there was a knock-on in that play", but then technically speaking, if the bunker observes a penalisable infringement they need to blow that penalty, even if they were directed to look for knock-ons?

It's an absolute pandora's box. Teams will also now save their challenges for these last-ditch hail mary challenges.

They'll also challenge tries, which result in a structured restart, even if awarded by the ref. Because the bunker looks at the final moments of the try, but I am pretty sure the bunker does not go all the way back to the PTB to check for every possible infringement.

Thanks Jirsky. Well reported.

 

[KH1988]

Lee H interview - he isnt messing around!

'Disgraceful': Wests Tigers Chairman furious over controversial call

The NRL concedes the wrong decision was made by the bunker at the end of the Wests Tigers game in Townsville. The league insists the captain’s challenge from North Queensland was allowable under the circumstances. Head of Football Graham Annesley said in a press conference today the perceived...

www.2gb.com

 

[851]

We got ripped off, there is no doubt about that, but we scored 5 tries to 4, Doueihi kicked 3 from 6, Holmes kicked 5 from 5. If Doueihi had converted one of the 2 late tries, we win, we need a reliable goal kicker

 

[mtd#2]

And if so, so be it! They can suffer in their jocks. Until the NRL itself has to pay a penalty, nothing will change. Our club has just suffered a penalty and that's ok?
Or do I have that the wrong way around? Is the NRL is owned by the betting agencies?

They own them in the sense of revenue they bring the NRL.

To go against them would bite the hand that feeds them.

They are too weak to put up a fight.

 

[Plato]

Well he's re-writing the interpretation of the text, in my opinion.

I watched first half of Annesley's presser and Chammas (I think it is) presses him on how a challenge was awarded when no decision was made. Annesley says "there was a structured restart - the penalty" and Chammas says "yeah the bunker awarded that, but prior to that the referee just says "held", so where is the structured restart before the player raises the challenge?"

Annesley then says "look we can debate the semantics about this all day, but you will not find a black and white written interpretation that covers every incident, including yesterday".

So contrary to what 100% of fans and players have believed the past 2.5 years of captain's challenge, you can in fact challenge any play - not just a ref's decision - any play that finishes in an "end of play" or, in their words, "a structured restart".

This means you can challenge any try and the final play before any of half-time or full-time, regardless of whether or not there has been an indiscretion.

It also asks - what exactly qualifies as a structured restart? Kicks that go dead? Touch-finders? Can you challenge the play leading up to any time the ball exits the field? Are we all to now become experts on what "structured restarts" are and are not?

This therefore means any team behind by a small margin will challenge the final play of 100% of matches, because the NRL has just confirmed that there does not need to be an indiscretion to justify a challenge. If you run your final play, throw the ball out the back, put it on the toe, if it bounces around the place... if the opposition ends up with the footy and the ref calls FT, you are within your rights to challenge that entire play, so long as you have a reason that you can identify, that now compels the video ref to review the entire play back to the previous PTB.

What boggles my mind is how the NRL cannot see far enough ahead to understand the implications of what they are saying. In my profession, a significant amount of what I do is risk-management and interpretation of protocols. What this means is I am given written guidelines / instructions and part of my job is to predict the risks, the frequently-asked-questions, the inconsistencies, the probably outcomes of those instructions.

The NRL has to do the same thing, they have to think very long and hard about the implications of 16 teams, 16 coaches and some 400 players who will do anything to exploit a loophole.

And I guarantee you now, 95% of matches that conclude, so long as the losing side has a challenge, they will challenge the final "hectic" play just in case there was some unobserved infringement that might be picked up. You could say "I challenge that there was a knock-on in that play", but then technically speaking, if the bunker observes a penalisable infringement they need to blow that penalty, even if they were directed to look for knock-ons?

It's an absolute pandora's box. Teams will also now save their challenges for these last-ditch hail mary challenges.

They'll also challenge tries, which result in a structured restart, even if awarded by the ref. Because the bunker looks at the final moments of the try, but I am pretty sure the bunker does not go all the way back to the PTB to check for every possible infringement.

Even if Klein comes up with a new rule allowing the Cowboys to challenge, they had ten seconds after the event to do that, not ten seconds after Klein sent information through to the ref. That's about the same as lodging a challenge after watching the on field screen well after ten seconds have elapsed. No matter, Annersley is sure that timing wasn't the problem so it must have been ok.

 

[Coastie_Tiger]

We need to come out with a public statement to say we dont accept the explanation and will be exploring any and all avenues in the coming days.

We cant just roll over and cop this, it could result in us getting the spoon for the first time and also could shape the top 4 and 8. So at the end of the day we may not be the only team duded by this.

Also Klein should immediately fall on his sword the Nrl should have sacked him on the spot but that is the next most admirable thing to do.

 

[Newtown]

Wests Tigers don't be a cat by not standing up for your rights. Be brave and stand up for your rights and you will be admired by every football team except North Queensland. NRL have admitted a huge error. Right is on Wests tigers side.

 

[jirskyr]

Even if Klein comes up with a new rule allowing the Cowboys to challenge, they had ten seconds after the event to do that, not ten seconds after Klein sent information through to the ref. That's about the same as lodging a challenge after watching the on field screen well after ten seconds have elapsed. No matter, Annersley is sure that timing wasn't the problem so it must have been ok.

They will say it was within 10 seconds of the whistle, and after that only delayed because the ref couldn't hear what was being said in the earpiece.

 

[old_man_tiger]

Lee H interview - he isnt messing around!

'Disgraceful': Wests Tigers Chairman furious over controversial call

The NRL concedes the wrong decision was made by the bunker at the end of the Wests Tigers game in Townsville. The league insists the captain’s challenge from North Queensland was allowable under the circumstances. Head of Football Graham Annesley said in a press conference today the perceived...

www.2gb.com

He went hard, probably the first time in a while I've liked what he has to say haha

Edit for those who don't want to listen, basically the club doesn't want to set a precedent for challenging legitimate ref calls during play. They are reviewing timing, and who said what to who to see if there is a case that what transpired was after the proper conclusion of the game. LH mentioned "what happens on the field stays on the field", our argument will be that we should have been shaking hands walking off the field.

 

[supercoach]

So why could we have not counter challenged their kicker being over the line when he kicked the ball, that infringement would have been before our non infringement . Annesley has as much credibility as Trump

 

[Newtown]

We need to come out with a public statement to say we dont accept the explanation and will be exploring any and all avenues in the coming days.

We cant just roll over and cop this, it could result in us getting the spoon for the first time and also could shape the top 4 and 8. So at the end of the day we may not be the only team duded by this.

Also Klein should immediately fall on his sword the Nrl should have sacked him on the spot but that is the next most admirable thing to do.

The Tab and other bookies have already paid out a huge amount for those who bet really big money on North Queensland to win the match. If it the ruling which occurred last night is overturned there is a huge likelihood that the betting agencies 1 is that the betting agencies would claim from the NRL all of the huge amount of money which they forked out to those who backed North Queensland. Of course there is another problem as to the betting agencies also claiming from NRL the money which would be needed to those who bet WEsts Tigers to win.

As you can see these are the real reasons why the NRL doesn't not want to give the two points to Wests tigers. Stand up Wests tigers and fight for your rights.

 

[Plato]

I watched first half of Annesley's presser and Chammas (I think it is) presses him on how a challenge was awarded when no decision was made. Annesley says "there was a structured restart - the penalty" and Chammas says "yeah the bunker awarded that, but prior to that the referee just says "held", so where is the structured restart before the player raises the challenge?"

Interesting, we have a precedent. So from here on in as well as shouting out the six agains, referees will be shouting out the structured restarts giving captains the opportunity to challenge events they probably didn't even see. Bellamy will be giving lessons on that one right now, but Annersley will shut it down with a new rule or "clarification" tomorrow.