My first live game of the season….

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...
Do you think Wests Tigers will vigoursly challenge?
 
Cobarcats said:
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.
Click to expand...
No I'm differentiating between (a) having grounds for appeal, and (b) actually going through with it.

We all no, no matter what the NRL says on the matter, that Tigers will not take legal action and will not get the 2 points back. The NRL cannot permit external intervention on the outcome of matches, it just can't happen.

The NRL may apologise, as you say, but that will be it.

HOWEVER there are of course grounds for an appeal. It's just those grounds are irrelevant because NRL won't make any changes. Possibly they dump the refs for a week if they agree it was a bad call.
 
Newtown said:
Do you think Wests Tigers will vigoursly challenge?
Click to expand...
I think they will vigorously complain - they have already put in an official complaint to the NRL.

But nothing will happen. You cannot argue with the ruling body, because by definition they make up the rules. Only if you can prove intentional fraud or criminal activity can you potentially win a case in court to reverse the outcome of a match, and even then I would never expect such an outcome to actually occur.

No they will complain as much as possible, for as long as possible, and the NRL may apologise to placate them, but nothing else will happen.

As I said however - of course they have grounds to challenge, to raise a legal argument. It just won't end up in court.
 
jirskyr said:
No I'm differentiating between (a) having grounds for appeal, and (b) actually going through with it.

We all no, no matter what the NRL says on the matter, that Tigers will not take legal action and will not get the 2 points back. The NRL cannot permit external intervention on the outcome of matches, it just can't happen.

The NRL may apologise, as you say, but that will be it.

HOWEVER there are of course grounds for an appeal. It's just those grounds are irrelevant because NRL won't make any changes. Possibly they dump the refs for a week if they agree it was a bad call.
Click to expand...
Has there ever been a successful appeal where the governing body has changed the result? If there has been I bet you it was significant.
Cheating maybe. Melbourne to last and stripped titles??
 
Cobarcats said:
Has there ever been a successful appeal where the governing body has changed the result? If there has been I bet you it was significant.
Cheating maybe. Melbourne to last and stripped titles??
Click to expand...
Not of a match, no. Only things like Souths readmission to the comp, Dennis Tutty and Terry Hill on drafts, requests for transfer and the original compulsory geography rules.
 
The apology from Annesley will come today and the official will be dropped. If anything the rules will be reinforces to the officials and we we remain on course to win the spoon. Same result as the howler against the Warriors.

The best outcome would be the NRL stamping on dives and this incident preventing other teams suffering the same fate in the future.
 
I expect the nrl will wheel out pathetic excuses to try and explain away their howler. I doubt they will even address the swan dive & just leave that for the Oscar nominations. On the off chance they do actually decide to do something about diving, I have a horrible feeling that the first and probably only time it will be enforced it will be against the Tigers. Maybe I am just too used to the Tigers getting the kicks in the guts.
 
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...

No one is debating it was the wrong decision, but the decision happened WITHIN the game as long as the ref did not specifically signal "time off". You may know more than me mate but as far as I know, the game is still on until the ref signals with his two hands. He didn't do the signal so anything that happened before he did the signal is "human error".

Let's take the apology, whinge about it for a year and play the victim card like Todd did earlier this year. The decision I don't think can legally be overturned.
 
krissy said:
I expect the nrl will wheel out pathetic excuses to try and explain away their howler. I doubt they will even address the swan dive & just leave that for the Oscar nominations. On the off chance they do actually decide to do something about diving, I have a horrible feeling that the first and probably only time it will be enforced it will be against the Tigers. Maybe I am just too used to the Tigers getting the kicks in the guts.
Click to expand...
If the NRL come out and say sorry Tigers we stuffed up then why cant the WT be suitably reimbursed.
The amount paid could be graded and that would be determined by our legal teams case that they present.
That would make sure that the NRL don't give cases like this lip service.
 
stryker 69 said:
If anything comes out of this, I’d love to see the bunker removed from the game. It s a direct tool for match fixing.
Click to expand...
I'd be happy to see this, and perhaps reintroduce the second on-field referee.

Refs and touchies make a decision based on what they see with their own eyes in real-time, and that's that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 621 (members: 38, guests: 583)
Back
Top