NRL Round 24 - Sharks V Knights - 4:05pm Sunday 18 August - PointsBet Stadium, Sydney.

The call that probably stings the most is them going back and putting McInnes on report with 5 to go for an elbow in a pretty kickable position. I hate how they go back and put players on report a set or 2 later. Just wish they’d deal with it post game.
 
Kurriboy said:
Well that is ridiculous, they can rule offside when a kick is involved, or as we recently saw with a kickoff etc.

OB going to get fined anyway, he should have unloaded fully and blasted that ref failure.

Crossland sin binned for flopping on and delaying the game right before half time, I guess ruled preventing a scoring chance, yet Cronulla allowed to be blatantly and deliberately offside to block out field goal attempt is play on!

I get they don't want to be the focal point by blowing a game deciding penalty but there has to be a line drawn. They didn't mind being the focal point blowing 2 game denying penalties with the blocker penalties, and neither of those really blocked anybody.
Click to expand...
A major problem for consistency in NRL by referees interpretations of “rules”, that are at best very rubbery.
Lately I just shake my head with how the game is interpreted at all points of the game, in each game and by different referees in each game.
Then on Monday Mr Annesley comes out and supports individual referee performances in weekend games, with different referee interpretations in different games by different referees, which logically means there is a problem somewhere being papered over.
After playing for many decades and being a student of the game for over 50 years, this just makes no sense to me.
I am really happy I am not playing today in our rugby union style interpretation of our once great game.
 
waynesworld said:
The call that probably stings the most is them going back and putting McInnes on report with 5 to go for an elbow in a pretty kickable position. I hate how they go back and put players on report a set or 2 later. Just wish they’d deal with it post game.
Click to expand...
Yeah theres no need to do it in game if there is no benefit to the victims side. Just let the MRC deal with it.
 
Did anyone watch grahams review he was obviously pretty annoyed with AOB comments he mentioned riduclous decision and dressing it up multiple times.

Apart from that he said crossland was a professional foul and the ref had no choice i could live with that if they are consistent.

He said the blocker penaltys were clear cut obstruction . He did conceed that kennedy may have been offside but only by one step and bunker cant rule on that and to hard for the onfield officials to pick it up.
 
nunnsy said:
Did anyone watch grahams review he was obviously pretty annoyed with AOB comments he mentioned riduclous decision and dressing it up multiple times.

Apart from that he said crossland was a professional foul and the ref had no choice i could live with that if they are consistent.

He said the blocker penaltys were clear cut obstruction . He did conceed that kennedy may have been offside but only by one step and bunker cant rule on that and to hard for the onfield officials to pick it up.
Click to expand...
Graham needs a good hard look at himself. Chops and changes rules to suit his own agenda. Quitting is probably the best option for him. The refereeing standard this year has been atrocious.
 
nunnsy said:
Did anyone watch grahams review he was obviously pretty annoyed with AOB comments he mentioned riduclous decision and dressing it up multiple times.

Apart from that he said crossland was a professional foul and the ref had no choice i could live with that if they are consistent.

He said the blocker penaltys were clear cut obstruction . He did conceed that kennedy may have been offside but only by one step and bunker cant rule on that and to hard for the onfield officials to pick it up.
Click to expand...
One step offside is still offside. How can't the bunker rule on that? It was clear as day
 
Sammyyy said:
As much as we deserved the win, I’m glad the Sharks killed our finals hopes today. Saves us from watching their sub-par football in the hope they make the finals in the coming weeks when we clearly don’t deserve to be there.

If we don’t fire in the first 5 rounds next year, I hope AOB is shown the door. We do not have a bad team on paper and we should not be dishing up some of the crap we have seen this year.
Click to expand...
Then next year becomes a write off, if a club wants to get rid of a coach it's at the end of the year.

That way the new coach can start putting his ideas and systems in place for pre season training.

So if they have any inkling the coach is not the right man now is the time to make the call.
 
nunnsy said:
He said the blocker penaltys were clear cut obstruction . He did conceed that kennedy may have been offside but only by one step and bunker cant rule on that and to hard for the onfield officials to pick it up.
Click to expand...
I just watched, I don’t understand who was obstructed and he didn’t explain how it was either. He just said it was obstruction and moved on really. You’re right he was clearly angry at AOB, was very surprised he didn’t point out KP actually missed.
 
waynesworld said:
I just watched, I don’t understand who was obstructed and he didn’t explain how it was either. He just said it was obstruction and moved on really. You’re right he was clearly angry at AOB, was very surprised he didn’t point out KP actually missed.
Click to expand...
It was really weird that he put up the rule which says "The referee or video referee may rule obstruction if any player from the attacking team in relation to a field goal takes up a position near the play the ball and in the opinion of the referee obstructs a defender, regardless of whether there is physical contact"

Because that sort of disproves the penalty, the Knights players were nowhere near the play the ball.

Wasn't the problem that players would stand in front of the play the ball or right next to it, and block defenders there? Using decoy runners for a field goal, who could legitimately receive the ball, shouldn't be a penalty - it should be common sense! As long as they don't make any contact with defenders. To rule that they're obstructing is just ridiculous, there's always going to be players around looking to take a hit up.

Annesley just has some really weird ideas about the game, has no feel for it at all, and no idea what fans like to see.
 
KP did actually miss (see image). The guys on comms thought he got it because they didn’t actually go to the ground so they’re looking at the same vision that we are.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2589.png
    IMG_2589.png
    85.9 KB · Views: 139
The obstruction didn’t happen, sharks player Kennedy from an offside position ran a direct line to charge down the field goal, if kick successful then Knights in front if not penalty.
If in future an attacking side plays the ball and passes it to a player behind for a field goal attempt and the defending players run directly at the play the ball area and run into the dummy half that passed the ball is the attacking side penalised for shepherding, yes extreme but a plausible scenario
 
Frank McWilliams said:
The obstruction didn’t happen, sharks player Kennedy from an offside position ran a direct line to charge down the field goal, if kick successful then Knights in front if not penalty.
If in future an attacking side plays the ball and passes it to a player behind for a field goal attempt and the defending players run directly at the play the ball area and run into the dummy half that passed the ball is the attacking side penalised for shepherding, yes extreme but a plausible scenario
Click to expand...
Surely they could not penalise the dummy half unless he moved in the path of defenders.
 
Frank McWilliams said:
The obstruction didn’t happen, sharks player Kennedy from an offside position ran a direct line to charge down the field goal, if kick successful then Knights in front if not penalty.
If in future an attacking side plays the ball and passes it to a player behind for a field goal attempt and the defending players run directly at the play the ball area and run into the dummy half that passed the ball is the attacking side penalised for shepherding, yes extreme but a plausible scenario
Click to expand...
Exactly, it makes no sense, there’s no consistency. In general play you have to be standing or running directly in front of the player with the ball for it to be an obstruction (unless you’re running into the defensive line and taking someone out, of course).

When a field goal attempt happens, apparently generally standing anywhere in a 20 metre vicinity is a penalty.

To put it another way, if Ponga dummies and runs, or passes, or even chip kicks, it’s not a penalty. There’s no logic to it!
 
jamesgould said:
Exactly, it makes no sense, there’s no consistency. In general play you have to be standing or running directly in front of the player with the ball for it to be an obstruction (unless you’re running into the defensive line and taking someone out, of course).

When a field goal attempt happens, apparently generally standing anywhere in a 20 metre vicinity is a penalty.
Click to expand...
It’s a bizarre rule as far as I’m concerned.
 
Mathematically speaking, which teams have to lose in order for us to make the finals?

Or is it a case of it's a dumpster fire and leave it at that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top