The Ref's



  • @barra said in The Ref's:

    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.



  • @tigerbill said in The Ref's:

    @Kazoo-Kid said in The Ref's:

    @tigerbill said in The Ref's:

    @clokan said in The Ref's:

    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.



  • 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.
    alt text



  • 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.



  • @jirskyr said in The Ref's:

    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



  • cos we had that filthy grum cummins, known tiger hater



  • @OzLuke said in The Ref's:

    @jirskyr said in The Ref's:

    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.



  • @jirskyr said in The Ref's:

    @OzLuke said in The Ref's:

    @jirskyr said in The Ref's:

    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…;)


Log in to reply
 

Recent Topics