Is Poor Officiating Going To End Up In Court

  • Thread starter Deleted member 3518
  • Start date
OK mistakes happen but compounding mistakes of this magnitude that directly decide the result of a match shouldn't be acceptable. It is a compl;ete travesty.

The captain's challenge was introduced to allow a team to challenge, when a stoppage in play has occurred, a referee's desicion to award a penalty or a loss of possession due to an error. Neither of these conditions applied yesterday. For the NRL to say now that any stoppage is challengeable is more of their usual self-serving nonsense. Not all penalties can be challenged, e.g. offiside, and not all possession losses can be challenged, e.g. forward passes.

The penalty decision against Kepaoa was clearly wrong - way wrong. Having taken up postion on the touchline from the kickoff all Kepaoa did was to run towards the flight of the ball - which was downfield and infield from where he was positioned. The contact was actually initiated by Feldt in a shameless effort to get a penalty.

The whole "escort" rule or rule interpretation is ridcously subjective. Taking a glance at the oppostion and changing running line didn't occur yesterday. But these shouldn't be factors anyway. When a team is attempting to field a kick their players should be entitled to move to anywhere in the vicinity of the ball to catch it, collect a rebound or tackle an opposition player if they get the ball. A penalty should only be given in the evnt of a clear jersey grab, trip or deliberate sideways step in front of an opposition player.
 
hank37w said:
Not far fetched at all when you've got nothing to lose and got one final play to pull something off and a 2 point penalty kick at goal will do the trick.

The game result is not on the line at every kick off, but in this particular case it was one last desperate bid at milking a penalty which inexplicably was awarded.
Click to expand...

Short kick off run into opposition player and dive when competing for the ball. Pretty sure players think of these scenarios all the time when a game is on the line. The same when a defender can't make a tackle but runs into the decoy leading to a try. Reynolds did it the other night. When a player makes contact with another when competing for the ball it goes to the bunker. When it didn't last night the captain's challenge was misused to make sure it did.
 
old_man_tiger said:
The only serious action they can take imo is suspending the wooden spoon market. This game actually impacts that quite a bit.
Click to expand...
Also werent they saying before the match if Cowboys are defeated, Penrith will hold a unassailable lead on the minor premiership and hence be the minor premiers as from that time?
 
MountainMan said:
OK mistakes happen but compounding mistakes of this magnitude that directly decide the result of a match shouldn't be acceptable. It is a compl;ete travesty.

The captain's challenge was introduced to allow a team to challenge, when a stoppage in play has occurred, a referee's desicion to award a penalty or a loss of possession due to an error. Neither of these conditions applied yesterday. For the NRL to say now that any stoppage is challengeable is more of their usual self-serving nonsense. Not all penalties can be challenged, e.g. offiside, and not all possession losses can be challenged, e.g. forward passes.

The penalty decision against Kepaoa was clearly wrong - way wrong. Having taken up postion on the touchline from the kickoff all Kepaoa did was to run towards the flight of the ball - which was downfield and infield from where he was positioned. The contact was actually initiated by Feldt in a shameless effort to get a penalty.

The whole "escort" rule or rule interpretation is ridcously subjective. Taking a glance at the oppostion and changing running line didn't occur yesterday. But these shouldn't be factors anyway. When a team is attempting to field a kick their players should be entitled to move to anywhere in the vicinity of the ball to catch it, collect a rebound or tackle an opposition player if they get the ball. A penalty should only be given in the evnt of a clear jersey grab, trip or deliberate sideways step in front of an opposition player.
Click to expand...
Didnt the NRL itself make a statement some time ago that players diving and making a play for a penalty etc could be charged with bringing the game into disrepute?
 
Good to see we’ve put out our email asking for our offical apology. This is a complete joke. NRL will hide behind rubbish again and spin it until it goes away.
 
NRL refs consistently punish outsiders. Some powerful people would be betting big on short-priced favourites, given that small bets at short odds are a waste of time.

Feldt just gave the refs to excuse to come though for the favourites and reward the NRL's most important punters, and the refs took their chance. Notice how quickly Klein made the decision. The game was in balance and Klein called a foul without a moment's hesitation, even though it was obvious that Feldt had changed direction to initiate contact. There were no replays or closer looks to be sure about the situation, which is usual in critical situations in matches between most clubs.
 
hank37w said:
I'm still stewing over the 1909 Grand Final and I wasn't even around but still outraged.
Click to expand...
That's why 1969 was so sweet for all those old-timers.

As Todd Payten says, and I will now quote forever in league circles: what goes around comes around.
 
Steveo07 said:
This is why it should be pursued. The betting companies want the favourite to win so the whole thing is legally illegal. Send it to court.
South's took the nrl to court and won.
We were forced to merge and stood back and took it. Its about time would stood up to these f##ks
Click to expand...
I don't think the betting companies wanted the favourite to win, they could hardly write a ticket for the Tigers on the result. The in play betting would be what I'd be looking at, the Cowboys would have been a million to one at 79.5 minutes, and would have been at juicy odds when the Tigers jumped them early.
 
MountainMan said:
OK mistakes happen but compounding mistakes of this magnitude that directly decide the result of a match shouldn't be acceptable. It is a compl;ete travesty.

The captain's challenge was introduced to allow a team to challenge, when a stoppage in play has occurred, a referee's desicion to award a penalty or a loss of possession due to an error. Neither of these conditions applied yesterday. For the NRL to say now that any stoppage is challengeable is more of their usual self-serving nonsense. Not all penalties can be challenged, e.g. offiside, and not all possession losses can be challenged, e.g. forward passes.

The penalty decision against Kepaoa was clearly wrong - way wrong. Having taken up postion on the touchline from the kickoff all Kepaoa did was to run towards the flight of the ball - which was downfield and infield from where he was positioned. The contact was actually initiated by Feldt in a shameless effort to get a penalty.

The whole "escort" rule or rule interpretation is ridcously subjective. Taking a glance at the oppostion and changing running line didn't occur yesterday. But these shouldn't be factors anyway. When a team is attempting to field a kick their players should be entitled to move to anywhere in the vicinity of the ball to catch it, collect a rebound or tackle an opposition player if they get the ball. A penalty should only be given in the evnt of a clear jersey grab, trip or deliberate sideways step in front of an opposition player.
Click to expand...
It shouldn’t have even gotten that far. If we are just to debate the bunker ruling, all other reviews I have seen, the bunker takes it right from the beginning of the play checking if everyone is onside first before even getting to the point of the contention.

In this review the player kicking off was offside so why didn’t bunker take it all the way to the start of play and call that out? Plain corruption!!! CHEATS!
 
  • Love
Reactions: BZN
magpies forever said:
Didnt the NRL itself make a statement some time ago that players diving and making a play for a penalty etc could be charged with bringing the game into disrepute?
Click to expand...
I heard something about them going 10 points clear, so that might be the case
 
MountainMan said:
The whole "escort" rule or rule interpretation is ridcously subjective. Taking a glance at the oppostion and changing running line didn't occur yesterday. But these shouldn't be factors anyway. When a team is attempting to field a kick their players should be entitled to move to anywhere in the vicinity of the ball to catch it, collect a rebound or tackle an opposition player if they get the ball. A penalty should only be given in the evnt of a clear jersey grab, trip or deliberate sideways step in front of an opposition player.
Click to expand...
I totally agree. The escort penalty is having it's "Magic Round 2021" moment, like high tackles, where you can't even say the word "escort" without being penalised.

The onus should be on the attacking side to put up kicks in their own advantage, not for defenders to provide runway lanes to allow kick-chasers an unimpeded red-carpet to the fullback.

I am not clear how the rule has developed to the position where defenders are expected to stand still like chess pieces just in case they shoulder someone off the ball.

Because the irony is you are allowed to shoulder and jostle an attacker in an attempt to regather a kick, but apparently you can't do that same thing if the ball is still in the air.

No, it should be clear infringements only - grabbing, tripping or someone who runs then stops dead still in front of an attacker, the latter being the absolute limit to which the interpretation can be applied.

Anyone watching the footy, running back without looking constantly over their shoulder, taking a line in front of someone cannot be penalised.

Vossy said it well this morning. He asked "is there a checklist for the bunker on these escorts? Was the player watching only the ball? Check. Was he running towards the ball? Check. Then what else do we need to consider?" And the feedback from the bunker was that AJ ran sideways, but he's still heading towards the ball? Surely we aren't at a point where you can only run in lines parallel to the sideline?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Staff online

Members online

Total: 363 (members: 25, guests: 338)
Forever online: Tigergran, Geo
Back
Top