The Ref's

[Aceshigh]

@WT2K do u think the ref would have blown tgat penalty against a Cronk or Smith in a semi final , it wont be the last time a ref blunder costs someone hopefully fot the Nrl’s sake it wont be in the G F

 

[OzLuke]

to be honest I think going for the early two points also did us no favours. I'm not a fan of that so early in the game. We could've put them under enormous pressure from the start and had a real go, but we took the easy two and let them off. That would've pumped their confidence up an amazing amount. They would've thought we had no confidence in attack

 

[hobbo1]

@WT2K do u think the ref would have blown tgat penalty against a Cronk or Smith in a semi final , it wont be the last time a ref blunder costs someone hopefully fot the Nrl’s sake it wont be in the G F

I’m praying the grand final is decided by an absolute howler ...
Then things might change ?!

 

[rustycage]

even when we were in the game, the Sharks looked better than us. They ran harder, looked more dangerous with the ball and better pressure in defence. Yeah we had some dud calls against us, including the first penalty for a voluntary tackle in the modern NRL era (history made by Tigers again), but bottom line is they were better than us. They played like a team who wanted to make the finals, we played like a team who played their final the week before.

They were a better team. Our bench was woefully inadequate. The way the second half turned out was complete b.s. we needed a fair rub of the green and were denied it. That tackle of Brooksy for which he was panalised was a disgraceful decision by the ref. I mean, how low does someone have to tackle for it to be legitimate? The shoulder charge, the shepherd, the disallowed try, the allowed try for them when comparing it to our disallowed one....there was no coming back from that with the team we had vs the team they had. We can blame ourselves all we like - and it's all very noble to do so, but the loss wasn't all our fault imo. There were other forces at play.

 

[tigerbill]

It’s easy, and maybe true to say that we just weren’t good enough to win on Sunday, but I’m pretty unhappy that we didn’t get an opportunity either.

There were a number of decisions during the game that together robbed our guys of the opportunity to compete. The following come to mind:

* Penalty against Nofa, apparently not held and played the ball. Seen that happen numerous times over the last few years, not once penalised

* The clear shoulder charge on Brooks when he took the quick tap, which went unpunished

* The Sharks first try which I believe should have been ruled a shepherd

* The dis-allowed Tigers try, pulled up as a shepherd but no defender was impeded

There was also the incident where the sharks player touched the ball when he was out, I though it would have only been a Shark’s feed if he touched the ball on the full. Maybe I’m wrong, none of the commentators said anything.

Can never be sure of the outcome had the ref’s made the right calls, but frankly I'm sick of the team not having equal opportunity to win.

Yeah, could someone explain why it was a shark's feed when the player touched the ball after a bounce inside.

If the ball is still moving, you can put one foot out of play, touch the ball, then receive the scrum feed in your favour. It has happened quite a bit this year. Blake Ferguson, in particular, has taken advantage of the rule a number of times to stop 40/20s. It doesn't apply if your foot is dead in goal (your team will have to take a goal-line drop out in that instance).

Cheers mate I had no idea. seems like a strange rule to me...

 

[watersider]

I think the shephard no try call was painful but okay. you can't run around the back of your own player. That's just always been the rule and I feel that was fair and correct. It was messy play.

My issue was with a lot of the interpretation. I felt the sharks 10 metres was lenient and a lot of holding in the tackles were missed. This dampened our already feeble attack. There was the instance where Fifita knocked on in the play the ball on tackle four, only to have us penalised for it, and Nofo late in the game is pushed down in attempting to play the ball and that's called a knock on. Obviously the Nofo first half play the ball penalty was an absolute joke, and I've never seen that hitting the ball out rule and it was a clear shoulder charge that inexplicably wasn't called (with 322 refs how does that get missed?). But whatever, they smashed us at the start of the second half and they were better the whole game.

I thought we handled them well in the first five tackles of sets, but we put very little pressure on their kickers, conversely Brooks rarely had time. This had us on the back foot a lot when it felt like we were getting the upper hand and it really enabled Shaun Johnson to look very dangerous. Townsend had a great game for them, too. It was only when Farah came on (old man with a broken leg) that we actually started to pressure the kicker. Was frustrating watching us lose that aspect of the game and I feel that played a bigger part than the refs incompetence.

 

[JD Tiger]

Sharks were the better team, no doubt about it. The point is though, that most weeks we got the rough end of the stick from the refs. There is the argument that the refs tend to subconsciously favour the better teams, and I think there is some psychological merit to that one, but I think it's more than that.

Together with the inconsistency at the judiciary, the referees, the salary cap penalties, the Storm gifts, favours, testimonials, and the not equal but fair mantra (or some absolute pigswill), it's time to call a spade a spade. The inequities in our society are transparently in our football as well. The Haves and the Have Nots. We at Wests Tigers clearly have not. The only way for that to Ever change, is for us to demand it. Demand they not treat us so poorly! We aren't even politely asking the question at present, we're just bending over and taking it.

 

[69-05-41]

From the hill I thought the shoulder charge on Brooks was a send-off. Guess I need to watch a replay.

Stats on NRL penalties would be nice. Time, location and on which tackle they are given. Our specialty appears to be conceding 5th tackle penalties.

A voluntary tackle penalty in-front with seconds to half-time with the scores even. I wonder if you can place a multi bet on that.

 

[rustycage]

From the hill I thought the shoulder charge on Brooks was a send-off. Guess I need to watch a replay.

Stats on NRL penalties would be nice. Time, location and on which tackle they are given. Our specialty appears to be conceding 5th tackle penalties.

A voluntary tackle penalty in-front with seconds to half-time with the scores even. I wonder if you can place a multi bet on that.

Never in 50 years of watching football have I witnessed this often mentioned voluntary tackle penalty. Rabs would have wet himself if he was calling the game. It's like a mass murderer leaving clues as to his guilt. The ref wants to be caught out as being corrupt perhaps lol.

 

[barra]

Brooks needed to do a Gallen and fall over when the sharks decoy runner hit his outside shoulder and stayed in the line.
Bunker says "made an incorrect decision to make a tackle" jeezz what rubbish.
Like the Nofo play the ball penalty, a big moment for the refs.

 

[rustycage]

Brooks needed to do a Gallen and fall over when the sharks decoy runner hit his outside shoulder and stayed in the line.
Bunker says "made an incorrect decision to make a tackle" jeezz what rubbish.
Like the Nofo play the ball penalty, a big moment for the refs.

He did that once before and got panned for acting. Maybe he was embarrassed by his actions previously and discarded it from his game. I don't know, but we sure got stiffed on that one.

 

[jirskyr]

It’s easy, and maybe true to say that we just weren’t good enough to win on Sunday, but I’m pretty unhappy that we didn’t get an opportunity either.

There were a number of decisions during the game that together robbed our guys of the opportunity to compete. The following come to mind:

* Penalty against Nofa, apparently not held and played the ball. Seen that happen numerous times over the last few years, not once penalised

* The clear shoulder charge on Brooks when he took the quick tap, which went unpunished

* The Sharks first try which I believe should have been ruled a shepherd

* The dis-allowed Tigers try, pulled up as a shepherd but no defender was impeded

There was also the incident where the sharks player touched the ball when he was out, I though it would have only been a Shark’s feed if he touched the ball on the full. Maybe I’m wrong, none of the commentators said anything.

Can never be sure of the outcome had the ref’s made the right calls, but frankly I'm sick of the team not having equal opportunity to win.

Yeah, could someone explain why it was a shark's feed when the player touched the ball after a bounce inside.

If the ball is still moving, you can put one foot out of play, touch the ball, then receive the scrum feed in your favour. It has happened quite a bit this year. Blake Ferguson, in particular, has taken advantage of the rule a number of times to stop 40/20s. It doesn't apply if your foot is dead in goal (your team will have to take a goal-line drop out in that instance).

Cheers mate I had no idea. seems like a strange rule to me...

In all respects except grubbers into the in-goal, if you have 1 foot outside of the field of play, touching the football immediately causes the football to also be outside the field of play, with the previous touch counting as last (say, pass or kick). This applies to field / touch, field / in-goal and in-goal / dead.

It makes sense when you consider the other variations of the ball crossing field boundaries:
* sticking one foot into touch or dead in-goal to cause a kick to be considered out on the full (esp kickoffs)
* sticking one foot into the in-goal to defuse a bomb
* having your foot on the line whilst in possession of a pass or attempting to bat a kick back into field

KK is correct that this rule also use to applied to ground kicks being taken dead-in-goal, however when fullbacks got wise and started making 80% of grubbers go dead in-goal, the rule was modified.

So actually Mulitalo was very clever in that situation, to both play at the ball whilst out and deny Nofo a chance to attack the bounce.

He should however have been pinged for shoulder-charge, I don't see how they missed it.

 

[jirskyr]

Ultimately I think it's futile because Sharks had our measure for most of the match.

I agree however that the first Nikora try was an obstruction as per the guidelines set all season - you need to receive the pass on the outside of the runner (i.e. not run behind) and the runner must run to the inside shoulder of the defender and not stop in the line. In that respect, Morris clearly hits Brooks on his outside shoulder and disrupts his attempt at tackle, even if Brooks does originally move towards Morris, I've seen 30 of those pulled back this year.

I'd ordinarily be happy to leave the Nikora try as a try, if this was done consistently. But this year they've usually been very strict about never running to the outside shoulder, even if it's a defensive decision, and Nikora runs precisely back into the spot created where Brooks is now blocked out of position.

 

[jirskyr]

I looked at Nofo's no-try - argument for a shepherd, but again, not consistent with the Nikora try in my opinion. Gallen is already beaten by Nofo when he puts his arms up and Mikaele is coming back into play after being a dummy runner.

Gallen makes no attempt to grab or dive at Nofo. I can understand the argument that Mikaele's presence impedes a regular attempt by Gallen, which is true, but that's the same thing that happens with Morris on Brooks for the first try.

 

[OzLuke]

I looked at Nofo's no-try - argument for a shepherd, but again, not consistent with the Nikora try in my opinion. Gallen is already beaten by Nofo when he puts his arms up and Mikaele is coming back into play after being a dummy runner.

Gallen makes no attempt to grab or dive at Nofo. I can understand the argument that Mikaele's presence impedes a regular attempt by Gallen, which is true, but that's the same thing that happens with Morris on Brooks for the first try.

he did that when we played them a few years ago and got minutely brushed by woods and it cost us a try

 

[izotope]

cos we had that filthy grum cummins, known tiger hater

 

[jirskyr]

I looked at Nofo's no-try - argument for a shepherd, but again, not consistent with the Nikora try in my opinion. Gallen is already beaten by Nofo when he puts his arms up and Mikaele is coming back into play after being a dummy runner.

Gallen makes no attempt to grab or dive at Nofo. I can understand the argument that Mikaele's presence impedes a regular attempt by Gallen, which is true, but that's the same thing that happens with Morris on Brooks for the first try.

he did that when we played them a few years ago and got minutely brushed by woods and it cost us a try

I remember that incident very clearly. That was a worse and more costly decision than last weekend. Woods however shouldn't have touched Gallen, which gave the idiot an excuse to dive. Tedesco scored... what a forgettable play overall, a result and 3 players I'd rather not spend time thinking about.

 

[OzLuke]

I looked at Nofo's no-try - argument for a shepherd, but again, not consistent with the Nikora try in my opinion. Gallen is already beaten by Nofo when he puts his arms up and Mikaele is coming back into play after being a dummy runner.

Gallen makes no attempt to grab or dive at Nofo. I can understand the argument that Mikaele's presence impedes a regular attempt by Gallen, which is true, but that's the same thing that happens with Morris on Brooks for the first try.

he did that when we played them a few years ago and got minutely brushed by woods and it cost us a try

I remember that incident very clearly. That was a worse and more costly decision than last weekend. Woods however shouldn't have touched Gallen, which gave the idiot an excuse to dive. Tedesco scored... what a forgettable play overall, a result and 3 players I'd rather not spend time thinking about.

but yet here we are.....😉