Captains challenge

Tiger Tarl said:
Looks like legal action is the only way -- and we could even have a leg to stand on:

After the referee blows the single whistle, 21 seconds pass before Cowboys captain Chad Townsend requests a challenge.

“A time limit of 10 seconds will apply to initiate a challenge from the point that the referee has signalled and verbalised the decision made,” the rules state.

The Tigers will argue a decision had not even been made for Townsend to challenge.

Butler doesn’t ask the bunker for assistance. There is no audio of him communicating with the bunker until they speak to him.

Under the NRL rules, a challenge is only permissible, “in instances where the referee makes a decision that results in the match recommencing with a structured restart”.

The Tigers will argue that wasn’t the case. They will argue that the only stoppage in play that allowed for the challenge was the whistle for the conclusion of the match, therefore the game was over.

The rules state that a structured restart includes the following: scrum, penalty (tap restart, penalty kick into touch, penalty goal attempt), sixth tackle handover, 20m restart, goal-line drop-out, general play handover, 40/20 or 20/40 restart.
Click to expand...
Ansley already through that whole argument out in the press release.

We have no legal grounds to an appeal.
 
tigertragic said:
Plus the outcome of the initial decision can’t be used to fulfil these requirements
Ie the penalty restart should be seperate to the matter under consideration
Click to expand...
That was badly worded by me, what I was trying to say was the circumstances for a challenge have to be in place before the challenge, not because of the outcome of challenge, and that wasn’t the situation.
 
tigertragic said:
That was badly worded by me, what I was trying to say was the circumstances for a challenge have to be in place before the challenge, not because of the outcome of challenge, and that wasn’t the situation.
Click to expand...
And that's what Annesley was trying to say was why the challenge was allowed to proceed which is bulldust.
 
liltiger said:
So turns out Tamou wanted to challenge and the referee didn't allow it, had they looked Val Holmes should have been penalised for standing our side of the halfway when taking the initial kick off.
Click to expand...
Yeah I was wondering this. If Annersley said the Cow's challenge was permissable due to it being the final play of the game after the 'soft' whistle, then this NEW RULE should be allowed for Tamou.

The ref did say the bunker had checked offside but I wonder:

1 - given it is a new challenge whether the bunker should check that again.

2 - Wests Tigers should also seek the bunker audio between Ref & Bunker to see if Bunker actually did say that offside at kickoff is all clear. If not, we would have legal grounds that we weren't given fair access to a challenge (as the Cows were).
 
Dennisspicer1 said:
A precedent was set in 2006 in afl were a club appealed and beat the hierarchy. Points were reversed and given to the club that lost wrongly. So it can be done.
Click to expand...
It was after the buzzer. In AFL, the refs aren't time-keepers and I don't think they communicate with them. The buzzer tells you when the game ends. So if the guy had forgotten to play the buzzer, they would've had no right to challenge the ruling. In our game, the ref didn't blow game over, he blowed the whistle for stop the play.
 
I would love to hear this audio, especially if it indicates something untoward was happening. 🤔
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 416 (members: 22, guests: 394)
Back
Top