Live game thread vs the Cowboys

[jirskyr]

Would someone please explain to me which referee decision did the Cowboys captain challenge? It is an opportunity to challenge a perceived error of judgment made by a referee within a 10 second window of opportunity. The referee made NO decision on field which was open to a Cowboys challenge. This is all just making up the rules after the event. The captain can’t initiate a ruling and then challenge it!!! That is corruption in all senses of the word.
The Annesley explanations are completely illogical.

He is saying, apparently, that a captain's challenge can in fact be made at any breakdown in play that results in a "structured restart". Not just in challenge to a refereeing decision, but in challenge to any outcome in that play.

That means any final play before half and fulltime can be challenged, as they are, so he says, structured restarts by default.

The question remains if that then includes ball going into touch, which you assume is also a structured restart, which means you could challenge any play that leads up to a touch-finding kick or tackle into touch, so long as you are aware what you are challenging.

Note also, according to yesterday's ref, there is no counter-challenge. Townsend challenged the lack of escort call by virtue of the end of play, then Tamou requested to challenge the kickoff (Holmes offside) and he was denied.

Of course these interpretations are 100% being made up on the fly and nobody in rugby league had any concept that these were possible.

And now the floodgates open... I tell you, they will challenge every full-time play from now on. Annesley says "it would be foolish, wasting everyone's time" and he'd be right, but the captains have nothing to lose. Every match will finish on a video challenge, if there are challenges left - mark my words.

 

[Tiger Woods]

🐍 🐍 🐍

 

[Liam G]

He is saying, apparently, that a captain's challenge can in fact be made at any breakdown in play that results in a "structured restart". Not just in challenge to a refereeing decision, but in challenge to any outcome in that play.

That means any final play before half and fulltime can be challenged, as they are, so he says, structured restarts by default.

The question remains if that then includes ball going into touch, which you assume is also a structured restart, which means you could challenge any play that leads up to a touch-finding kick or tackle into touch, so long as you are aware what you are challenging.

Note also, according to yesterday's ref, there is no counter-challenge. Townsend challenged the lack of escort call by virtue of the end of play, then Tamou requested to challenge the kickoff (Holmes offside) and he was denied.

Of course these interpretations are 100% being made up on the fly and nobody in rugby league had any concept that these were possible.

And now the floodgates open... I tell you, they will challenge every full-time play from now on. Annesley says "it would be foolish, wasting everyone's time" and he'd be right, but the captains have nothing to lose. Every match will finish on a video challenge, if there are challenges left - mark my words.

Thanks for this sensible analysis. In fact this results in there now being 3 on field referees at any one time ; the official ref appointed and the 2 captains. This is just a farcical manipulation of what should be a simple opportunity to examine and rectify referee error in any match, limited in application to avoid frivolous challenges. I am totally dumbfounded that the NRL has allowed this to happen.

 

[Blaze]

I’m wondering why the media hasn’t really picked up on Holmes being over the line and therefore offside on the restart… and more to the fact that it was asked of the ref at the time. It was clear and obvious and should have been looked at, as it wasn’t the same infringement that the cowboys had asked for. Why were we denied a captain’s challenge if the game hadn’t been ended yet? This whole debarcle leaves a sour taste in my mouth, just proves that it’s ok for other teams to challenge but not us….

 

[Wokk_]

I’m wondering why the media hasn’t really picked up on Holmes being over the line and therefore offside on the restart… and more to the fact that it was asked of the ref at the time. It was clear and obvious and should have been looked at, as it wasn’t the same infringement that the cowboys had asked for. Why were we denied a captain’s challenge if the game hadn’t been ended yet? This whole debarcle leaves a sour taste in my mouth, just proves that it’s ok for other teams to challenge but not us….

When has that been called anytime recently?

 

[Chicken_Faced_Killa]

I’m wondering why the media hasn’t really picked up on Holmes being over the line and therefore offside on the restart… and more to the fact that it was asked of the ref at the time. It was clear and obvious and should have been looked at, as it wasn’t the same infringement that the cowboys had asked for. Why were we denied a captain’s challenge if the game hadn’t been ended yet? This whole debarcle leaves a sour taste in my mouth, just proves that it’s ok for other teams to challenge but not us….

We were denied a challenge because the play had all been evaluated and cleared in the first challenge. They missed the technical kick off rule

 

[BAGNF05]

It was clearly their tactic.
Everyone could see that.
Which makes it even more reprehensible that they got the call.

People won’t like hearing this but WT should have discussed not blocking any chasers under any circumstances. Outfoxed again.

 

[Blaze]

We were denied a challenge because the play had all been evaluated and cleared in the first challenge. They missed the technical kick off rule

But that’s what I mean, at no point did the bunker replay the kick off and scrutinise it, they were only looking for the the escort, JT asked to use our challenge to look at something specific and he was denied because the on field ref put it in the basket of thinking they did. It was clear to see when they were going over it, they didn’t even bother…. If they are going to be an end all be all on it, the first thing they check for tries of kicks are offside players. I just don’t understand why you can’t challenge a different infringement to what the opposing team had called…. Fair enough you can’t challenge for the same one… it’s just something else that they should be looking at and if they don’t then why shouldn’t the captain be able to challenge when it was so obvious that’s all.

 

[Blaze]

When has that been called anytime recently?

When has what happened in that game been called under those circumstances? If the captain asks and he has a challenge up their sleeve, why is it ok for one team but not the other?

 

[Wokk_]

When has what happened in that game been called under those circumstances? If the captain asks and he has a challenge up their sleeve, why is it ok for one team but not the other?

No I mean the ref didn't look for it because I don't think any of them look for it. Just another miss by the ref to add to the pile.

 

[Blaze]

No I mean the ref didn't look for it because I don't think any of them look for it. Just another miss by the ref to add to the pile.

Absolutely, but that’s my point.JT put it to him specifically and was refused the option for them to check. So it’s not as if they weren’t aware when they were checking the whole process of play. They just conveniently missed it and denied us a challenge.

 

[bathursttiger1]

I also think the player kicking off was in front of the halfway line when he struck the ball. Not 100%, but I think that’s not allowed.

Correct.
Val Holmes, should have been a penalty to us.

 

[bathursttiger1]

🐍 🐍 🐍

View attachment 2023

Pity someone didn’t deck the grub.

 

[BAGNF05]

Pity someone didn’t deck the grub.

Only after two whistles though 😏

 

[jirskyr]

I’m wondering why the media hasn’t really picked up on Holmes being over the line and therefore offside on the restart… and more to the fact that it was asked of the ref at the time. It was clear and obvious and should have been looked at, as it wasn’t the same infringement that the cowboys had asked for. Why were we denied a captain’s challenge if the game hadn’t been ended yet? This whole debarcle leaves a sour taste in my mouth, just proves that it’s ok for other teams to challenge but not us….

The Herald is reporting it

Fresh twist in Tigers saga: Holmes should’ve been penalised for illegal kick-off​

By Michael Chammas and Caden Helmers​

Updated July 25, 2022 — 6.24pmfirst published at 3.07pm


As the Wests Tigers await a response from the NRL over the drama that surrounded the controversial finish to Sunday’s game, a fresh twist to the saga has riled the frustrated club.
The Herald can reveal Cowboys centre Valentine Holmes should have been penalised for an illegal kick-off in the moments leading up to the controversial obstruction that decided the game.

Valentine Holmes steps over the halfway mark while kicking off.
To compound the issue, Wests Tigers skipper James Tamou tried to use their captain’s challenge to expose the breach of the rules but referee Chris Butler would not allow him the opportunity to do so.
Under the Rugby League Laws of the Game, it states: “A player who kicks off or drops-out shall be penalised if he advances in front of the appropriate line before kicking the ball”.

After the Cowboys were successful in their contentious challenge, Tamou approached referee Butler.
“Can I challenge that?” Tamou asks.

James Tamou talks to referee Chris Butler.CREDIT:GETTY

“You can’t challenge the bunker,” Butler responds.
“Challenge offside, I have a spare challenge,” Tamou said.


“They already cleared that, mate,” Butler then says.
Earlier on Monday the NRL admitted the bunker got it wrong with the contentious escort call that denied the Wests Tigers what would have been a stunning win over North Queensland on Sunday.
NRL head of football Graham Annesley has stood firm in the belief the Cowboys were within their rights to issue a captain’s challenge on the last play of the game, but conceded the final call made by the bunker was incorrect.


The Tigers had the game taken from them after the siren when the Cowboys were handed a controversial penalty.
The Cowboys trailed by one point when they claimed Tigers centre Asu Kepaoa had run winger Kyle Feldt off the ball from a kick-off with one second remaining on the clock. No penalty was awarded on the field but North Queensland captain Chad Townsend was allowed a challenge.

Bunker official Ashley Klein then opted to award a penalty to North Queensland, in turn giving Valentine Holmes a shot at a match-winning penalty goal, in a decision that has left Tigers officials seething.
“We’re just not satisfied there is enough in that incident to warrant the decision of the bunker to award a penalty,” Annesley said.
“Yes, there was contact, yes, there was a collision. We believe the Wests Tigers players involved was heading towards the ball, he didn’t look over his shoulder to see who was coming behind him. Yes, he ran a slightly strange line to head towards the ball but he was heading towards the ball.
“These are matters of judgement for the officials, but on review this morning we just don’t believe there was enough in that to award a penalty. The captain’s challenge, at that point, should have been dismissed by the bunker as an unsuccessful challenge.”
Annesley remained adamant the Cowboys were within their rights to challenge, despite no call being made by the referee on the field.

 

[bigsiro]

I actually think that was the ploy of the Cowboys. For Feldt to take a dive & seek a penalty. That's why the kick went so long! And it came off. Disgrace!!!

It was clearly their tactic.
Everyone could see that.
Which makes it even more reprehensible that they got the call.

People won’t like hearing this but WT should have discussed not blocking any chasers under any circumstances. Outfoxed again.

It was impossible to avoid.
I’ve slowed it down.
One thing no one is talking about, or maybe noticed, is how on Feldt’s run he is not always looking at the ball. He looks at Kepoa and decides to run into him. If you look closely, a few steps before they collide Feldt’s stride changes and he actually leans into him, already committing to the dive before making contact. It was 100% planned and the video shows just how premeditated it was.

Kepoas eyes are always on the ball. He was never blocking anyone.

 

[jadtiger]

What the hell is a soft whistle?? Ive never ever noticed it in any other game. Times finished laurie is on the ground he has a hand placed on him which is considered a tackle. That is fulltime. Unfortunately they are making it up to suit themselves

What do you expect with a third rate right wing ex politician in charge?The only thing you can guarantee is lies deception arse covering and making sure the rich and powerful clubs get all the chocolates.

 

[jadtiger]

People won’t like hearing this but WT should have discussed not blocking any chasers under any circumstances. Outfoxed again.

It would have made no difference as that cheat Phelps would have just found somebody else to run into and Klein would have given a penalty regardless.

 

[Tiger Woods]

Pity someone didn’t deck the grub.

I’m sure all tigers fans feldt like punching him in the face 🤕 🤛

 

[Telltails]

Kent says the ref said no escorts before the kick off. So if your a Cowboys player the first thing you do is make sure you target a WTs player and scream escort after you take the dive. Funnily enough Kent saw that as a defence for the referees decision. It was as much an invitation for the Cowboys to milk a penalty.