Our Captains Challenge

[Madge]

Out of curiosity..

Did we challenge the decision of a shoulder charge or that he put his out in to touch. Do captains challenges only work for what the referee makes a decision on ? If not, why wasn’t it our ball when his foot went out? Is there some sort of priority measure with the penalty taking first place ? We challenged his foot being out - that was successful but it wasn’t given that by the bunker.

 

[Aceshigh]

Yep we were rorted in that call , its something that happens to our team , the decision should have been a Tiger’s feed , just another ref blunder

 

[Speed2burn]

I think we won the initial challenge but the shoulder charge overruled the foot on the touch line. Joke. Has happened to us a few times this season

 

[diedpretty]

Yea its weird - in every other aspect of the game a preceding infringement always takes priority. It should never have been a penalty. It should have been scrum to us and he could have put Douehi on report to be assessed by match committee.

 

[LARDS]

Plus there was no contact with the shoulder. Doehi hit him with his back.

 

[Fade.To.Black]

The powers that be wanted the Eels to win. Simple as that.
Getting the rub of the green on decisions that are just made up from week to week is worth another 2 or 3 wins a season. Parra have got favourable decisions plenty of times this year, the game earlier in the year against Manly being Exhibit A. They've been given a great leg-up this year. It stinks.

 

[cochise]

A shoulder charge is foul play and foul play does not get negated by a previous infringement. Just like if someone knocks the ball on you can still be penalised for a high hit after the knock on. I agree it may not have been a shoulder charge though

 

[Tim Sheens]

A shoulder charge is foul play and foul play does not get negated by a previous infringement. Just like if someone knocks the ball on you can still be penalised for a high hit after the knock on. I agree it may not have been a shoulder charge though

Maybe not, but could hardly be construed as a tackle.

 

[Celtic_Tiger]

A shoulder charge is foul play and foul play does not get negated by a previous infringement. Just like if someone knocks the ball on you can still be penalised for a high hit after the knock on. I agree it may not have been a shoulder charge though

But surely a foot in touch means the ball is dead, it's not an infringement as such and anything which happens after that is null and void. As was said previously AD could have gone on report for the match review committee to have a look but the ball was dead at that point so the game should have been restarted with a Tigers scrum feed.

 

[Tigerlily]

Plus there was no contact with the shoulder. Doehi hit him with his back.

Yes I think some of these refs need to go back into the education system if they think the shoulder is attached to the someone’s back. 🤬

 

[cochise]

A shoulder charge is foul play and foul play does not get negated by a previous infringement. Just like if someone knocks the ball on you can still be penalised for a high hit after the knock on. I agree it may not have been a shoulder charge though

Maybe not, but could hardly be construed as a tackle. I only saw it at the game so not sure what it looked like on tv.

Yeah it was a really poor attempt to get his arm away from his body which is what they look for when looking at shoulder chargers. I h

 

[cochise]

A shoulder charge is foul play and foul play does not get negated by a previous infringement. Just like if someone knocks the ball on you can still be penalised for a high hit after the knock on. I agree it may not have been a shoulder charge though

But surely a foot in touch means the ball is dead, it's not an infringement as such and anything which happens after that is null and void. As was said previously AD could have gone on report for the match review committee to have a look but the ball was dead at that point so the game should have been restarted with a Tigers scrum feed.

No that is not how it works, otherwise if in the same situation AD knocks him out with an elbow then there wouldn't be a penalty. A shoulder charge is foul play.

 

[TigerTownSFS]

Dumb question but why is the ball carrier allowed to charge with his shoulder (even connect with a tacklers head if it’s in the wrong place) whilst the tackler has to open up and get steamrolled?

 

[Bob]

Either way, clearly the tigers didn’t know that the shoulder charge would have priority. Otherwise why would we of challenged the out of bounds call.

 

[BalmainJnr]

A shoulder charge is foul play and foul play does not get negated by a previous infringement. Just like if someone knocks the ball on you can still be penalised for a high hit after the knock on. I agree it may not have been a shoulder charge though

Why did we lose the challenge though? We challenged that he was out and that was found to be correct. There have been other instances this year where a team challenged correctly but the referees found another infringement in the review and the challenging team retained their challenge.

 

[hobbo1]

A shoulder charge is foul play and foul play does not get negated by a previous infringement. Just like if someone knocks the ball on you can still be penalised for a high hit after the knock on. I agree it may not have been a shoulder charge though

Why did we lose the challenge though? We challenged that he was out and that was found to be correct. There have been other instances this year where a team challenged correctly but the referees found another infringement in the review and the challenging team retained their challenge.

Exactly...Sivo goes into touch ..our feed
Doohey still gets pinged for the shoulder charge

 

[izotope]

no problems with the shoulder charge call, but if we challenged foot on touch. It should be challenge successful and then they get a penalty.

That really hurt us as there was several bloopers from then on

 

[Mighty_Tiger]

We lost the challenge as the decision on field was a penalty for the shoulder charge, it was a dumb decision to challenge it. Sure we could go back and see he was out but the penalty still was going to stand

 

[Tigerbuck63]

Out of curiosity..

Did we challenge the decision of a shoulder charge or that he put his out in to touch. Do captains challenges only work for what the referee makes a decision on ? If not, why wasn’t it our ball when his foot went out? Is there some sort of priority measure with the penalty taking first place ? We challenged his foot being out - that was successful but it wasn’t given that by the bunker.

Lets face it decisions usually don't go our way.
I think the problem also stems with having an assertive Captain that knows the rules and puts the refs on notice for there calls.
We all thought the decision was wrong what should of been stated yes we challenge that he was out and the touch judge did not put up his flag and made a mistake, any incident after that according to the rules in null and void ref.

I am sure the refs would then ensure that they tried to get the 50/50 calls correct.

If you notice the Parramtta players they are continuously in the refs ear even at half time Gutterson was seen talking to the ref.

 

[Mighty_Tiger]

A shoulder charge is foul play and foul play does not get negated by a previous infringement. Just like if someone knocks the ball on you can still be penalised for a high hit after the knock on. I agree it may not have been a shoulder charge though

But surely a foot in touch means the ball is dead, it's not an infringement as such and anything which happens after that is null and void. As was said previously AD could have gone on report for the match review committee to have a look but the ball was dead at that point so the game should have been restarted with a Tigers scrum feed.

No it doesn’t.
If foul play occurs regardless of the infringement then it will be penalty.

The on field decision was a penalty before we made the challenge. As part of our challenge we needed to prove it wasn’t a penalty to win the challenge. It was a poor decision to challenge.