Annesley's weakly "Why this happened" report - 2022

[The Who]

Are they water polo goals at each end?

 

[globaleagle]

It's the round 10 wrap up champions.​

Thank goodness it only went for 20 mins as it was packed with more 'filler' than the recent Knights v Bulldogs highlights video - which somehow got to 4 mins!

Anyway:
Not a very controversial weekend.
3 mins of magic round facts such as crowd figures and amount of hotdogs sold (nothing about crowd biffs).

1) souffs v Warriors: Correct to send Cook to the sin bin for obstructing Reece Walsh. No penalty try awarded as Johnson was first to get to the ball and knocked on.
2) sharks v Raiders: Correct to sin bin Horsburgh because he's a ranga. (lol). Nah, because he dived across and obstructed a player and did a bad acting job pretending to dive.
3) sharks v raiders. Correct to allow sharks players to tackle klokstad into touch as the tackle wasn't completed.

4) sharks v raiders Refs wrong...! Graham slaps ball out of raiders dummy half hands. Ref ruled a knock on raiders and sharks scrum 'n feed.
Annesley said "Good that it didn't decide the game, it was a ref mistake but 'these things happen'.

Other Stuff:

Refs and MRC are becoming a lot more consistent (sigh)

Q: Was last years crackdown on high tackles in magic round a case of short term pain for long term gain?
A: It was a co-incidence that the crackdown was in magic round but happy that there's less high tackles so players are obviously listening and understanding the consequences.

Q: Josh Mcguire said he's working on his technique, is that a vindication of the crackdown's necessity?
A: Vindication is too strong a word, but it is pleasing that players are trying to stop these dangerous tackles. Which they are as there are less of them.

Some more waffle

stream ends


THANK YOU!!!!

 

[Nordburg]

It's the round 10 wrap up champions.

Thank goodness it only went for 20 mins and it was packed with more waffle than the recent Knights v Bulldogs high-lights package - which somehow got to 4 mins!

Anyway:
Not a very controversial weekend.
3 mins of magic round facts such as crowd figures and amount of hotdogs sold (nothing about crowd biffs).

1) souffs v Warriors: Correct to send Cook to the sin bin for obstructing Reece Walsh. No penalty try awarded as Johnson was first to get to the ball and knocked on.
2) sharks v Raiders: Correct to sin bin Horsburgh because he's a ranga. (lol). Nah, because he dived across and obstructed a player and did a bad actin job pretending to dive.
3) sharks v raiders. Correct to allow sharks players to tackle klokstad into touch as the tackle wasn't completed.

4) sharks v raiders Refs wrong...! Graham slaps ball out of raiders dummy half hands. Ref ruled a knock on raiders and sharks scrum 'n feed.
Annesley said "Good that it didn't decide the game, it was a ref mistake but 'these things happen'.

Other Stuff:

Refs and MRC are becoming a lot more consistent (sigh)

Q: Was last years crackdown on high tackles in magic round a case of short term pain for long term gain?
A: Was a co-incidence that the crackdown was in magic round but happy that there's less now so players are listening and understanding the consequences.

Q: Josh Mcguire said he's working on his technique, is that a vindication of the crackdown's necessity?
A: Vindication is too strong a word, but it is pleasing that players are trying to stop these dangerous tackles. which they are as there are less of them.

Some more waffle

stream ends


THANK YOU!!!!

One thing that ticked me off in the Manly game was Cobbo’s intercept try.I know it had absolutely no bearing on the result but he was offside.What annoyed me about it was that the bunker gets involved with everything else and in this case,given it was a try,they had plenty of opportunities to pick it up.Does it get seen if the games closer,do the commentators make more of a deal.Maybe I’m making too big of a deal of it given the score line,but if the NRL are a paying a fortune for the bunker,how do you get simple things like this wrong?Conversely,I maybe completely wrong and the try was fine

 

[The Who]

One thing that ticked me off in the Manly game was Cobbo’s intercept try.I know it had absolutely no bearing on the result but he was offside.What annoyed me about it was that the bunker gets involved with everything else and in this case,given it was a try,they had plenty of opportunities to pick it up.Does it get seen if the games closer,do the commentators make more of a deal.Maybe I’m making too big of a deal of it given the score line,but if the NRL are a paying a fortune for the bunker,how do you get simple things like this wrong?Conversely,I maybe completely wrong and the try was fine

The Bunker has created the mess. Sometimes it gets involved during the run of play; other times minutes later. Then there are times when an obvious mistake has been made and it remains mute.
Now, the reason The Bunker was introduced was to eliminate mistakes; but when? If you are fair dinkum it should be for the entire match, yet who wants a 3-hour match?
To have a rule that it can only make a decision about a try on the final play is ludicrous. How can the Bunker not be allowed to pick up an obvious error in an earlier lead-up to a try? It's akin to a trial jury being restricted from pertinent evidence.
Which is why The Bunker was never going to work, and has caused more controversy than the one referee ever did.

 

[Brookie Bob]

It's the round 10 wrap up champions.​

Thank goodness it only went for 20 mins as it was packed with more 'filler' than the recent Knights v Bulldogs highlights video - which somehow got to 4 mins!

Anyway:
Not a very controversial weekend.
3 mins of magic round facts such as crowd figures and amount of hotdogs sold (nothing about crowd biffs).

1) souffs v Warriors: Correct to send Cook to the sin bin for obstructing Reece Walsh. No penalty try awarded as Johnson was first to get to the ball and knocked on.
2) sharks v Raiders: Correct to sin bin Horsburgh because he's a ranga. (lol). Nah, because he dived across and obstructed a player and did a bad acting job pretending to dive.
3) sharks v raiders. Correct to allow sharks players to tackle klokstad into touch as the tackle wasn't completed.

4) sharks v raiders Refs wrong...! Graham slaps ball out of raiders dummy half hands. Ref ruled a knock on raiders and sharks scrum 'n feed.
Annesley said "Good that it didn't decide the game, it was a ref mistake but 'these things happen'.

Other Stuff:

Refs and MRC are becoming a lot more consistent (sigh)

Q: Was last years crackdown on high tackles in magic round a case of short term pain for long term gain?
A: It was a co-incidence that the crackdown was in magic round but happy that there's less high tackles so players are obviously listening and understanding the consequences.

Q: Josh Mcguire said he's working on his technique, is that a vindication of the crackdown's necessity?
A: Vindication is too strong a word, but it is pleasing that players are trying to stop these dangerous tackles. Which they are as there are less of them.

Some more waffle

stream ends


THANK YOU!!!!

Nothing on: Dylan Brown charged with a high tackle after bunker intervention; whole issue swept under the carpet come Monday morning, nothing to see here, etc etc etc.
Why?

 

[pt73]

One thing that ticked me off in the Manly game was Cobbo’s intercept try.I know it had absolutely no bearing on the result but he was offside.What annoyed me about it was that the bunker gets involved with everything else and in this case,given it was a try,they had plenty of opportunities to pick it up.Does it get seen if the games closer,do the commentators make more of a deal.Maybe I’m making too big of a deal of it given the score line,but if the NRL are a paying a fortune for the bunker,how do you get simple things like this wrong?Conversely,I maybe completely wrong and the try was fine

Don't worry as the NRL has some fantastic technology coming that will eliminate all forward passes.

Well that's the narrative anyway.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

3 mins of magic round facts such as crowd figures and amount of hotdogs sold (nothing about crowd biffs)

That's a big fail, the NRL should be very loud about this. What hapened to OJ is disgraceful.
The NRL shot themselves in the foot (and so did the stadium, security and cops) by quietly condoning that thug who bashed the bloke for not being silent on not-Anzac day.
So obviously sometimes crowd violence is OK.

 

[The Who]

Don't worry as the NRL has some fantastic technology coming that will eliminate all forward passes.

Well that's the narrative anyway.

It sounds good. But will play be pulled up for every forward pass, or just on the last play leading up to a try? That is the situation we currently have; does The Bunker have full, limited or partial powers?
Also, is the penalty for a deliberate forward pass still in the rules? It is never applied so I suspect it it simply ignored. Will the forward pass technology be like cricket's 15% arm bend to determine a bowler's action? If the ball is thrown 15% forward is that become a deliberate ruling?
New technology is supposed to improve referee decision-making but it actually raises more questions than solves problems.

 

[globaleagle]

Also... I am not Graham Annesley.

So I don't know why certain issues weren't mentioned. lol cough.

 

[pt73]

It sounds good. But will play be pulled up for every forward pass, or just on the last play leading up to a try? That is the situation we currently have; does The Bunker have full, limited or partial powers?
Also, is the penalty for a deliberate forward pass still in the rules? It is never applied so I suspect it it simply ignored. Will the forward pass technology be like cricket's 15% arm bend to determine a bowler's action? If the ball is thrown 15% forward is that become a deliberate ruling?
New technology is supposed to improve referee decision-making but it actually raises more questions than solves problems.

Agreed, I was being facetious.

The more technology is used will only result in a longer game and selective usage (i.e. only in scoring opportunities) will only create protests from fans and coaches.

 

[globaleagle]

Hiya champs!

How are you all?

Me.... sheesh, 3 pages of notes on round 11 wrap up! ~applause~..... tears

I've worked out why Graham Annesley waffles on so much.... PAY ATTENTION...

He says something, then he thinks about all the ways what he just said could be interpreted...then says another 500 things to quantify what he said so there's no big headline tomorrow.

Eg: "Refs don't get every decision right."
~thinks~ "Oops... what I mean is that refs get about 98% of decisions right which is good and v'landy said if a kid got 98% in exams they'd be considered a genius...but that doesn't mean we don't try and get 100% but they are only human even with the bunker to use but even then some things are open to interpretation which doesn't mean we don't have rules because we do and anyway be nice to refs."

shizzle like that. It's excruciating.

Ok, if you're still around:
Main topic on conversation was the bunker.
Explained the rules about what happens after tries are scored (god, I'm angry just typing this 10 mins of b/s).

Ref will only refer if he thinks it is a no try
If ref thinks it's a try, bunker immediately starts looking at the last play. If they see something, they tell the ref who then does the video referral sign.
GA was under the impression that we all think the bunker only starts looking when the ref signals. But we all friggen know that when the bunker finds something they signal the ref who stupidly has to pretend they somehow just realised the bunker should (for eg) check grounding when the kicker is about to try and convert said try. fmd...goose.

So: Knights v Broncos.
Was not a obstruction. Riki was a support player and not a lead runner.

He then said it was time to get technical:
Person caught the ball on the inside shoulder then passed it before he ran behind the bronco. Play went on try scored, no problem in GA's mind.
After explaining how technical this was, he said it was a 50/50 call (lolololol)
then said it came down to the individual bunker ref's point of view. (which is stupid as that means there is no consistency and dangerous as there shouldn't be subjectivity in rules application.)
Then said basically the player caught and passed on the inside shoulder of the lead runner = no obstruction. I thought the whole problem was that + shepherding. (I will not comment on that fact he said lead runner after going to great pains before to point out he was a support player)

Same game regarding Gagai's non try for not grounding the ball.
GA: He dropped it. The slow -mo shows he didn't regather. It's a knock on.
GA: We use freeze frames in the nrl because "That's the world we live in."
Heaps of opinions are generated by the media going over everything frame by frame and the nrl will continue to use it.

GA: If the decision went the other way, people would complain that it shouldn't have been a try. This was not a bunker error.

MANLY V EELS:
As predicted:
The Christian tackle was head high and deserved a penalty. Showed 2 camera angles.
Was stupefied that people (ie Des) could simply claim that it wasn't. It was a head high tackle, an accident, but high all the same.

Just because the MRC don't lay charges, doesn't mean it was not an infringement.
Stats! - This year 147 high tackle penalties with only 19 charges by the mrc showing that it doesn't have to be a mrc charge for it to be a high tackle (remember, this guy hates stats...when they prove him wrong)

Q: What do you think the reaction would have been if this happened in the first 10 mins?
GA: Less outrage for sure.
Q: What about the 9-2 penalty count and that Des said cummings will review his game?
GA: Refs are F/T and review all their games anyway. I'm not an apologist for refs (lololol) I say things that they don't like. On mondays we have a meeting and review the issues intensely.
8 mins of waffle o...m...g.
GA: Yeah refs review their games, so what?
GA: Refs will get in trouble if they are found to only be refereeing one side. (Yeah right...bull!)

THAT WAS THE ONLY MANLY INCIDENT DISCUSSED.

Regarding the bunker in the game:
Basically: It's here to stay..
Getting rid of the bunker wouldn't reflect the expectations of the people today because too many things would get missed (then went on to support refs - see opening paragraph)
We need to use the technology.
Stats! - 148 captains challenges this year. 73 were successful. with no bunker, that'd mean ~checks notes~ there'd be 73 more mistakes the refs had made! waffle about how good refs are - see opening paragraph. sigh.

Before he said we do not tell the refs how to ref a game. We don't ask for even penalty counts. It'd be a disaster and incorrect to tell the refs how to control any game.
Now - he said "We're always on the refs to minimise stoppages and keep the game flowing" which absolutely is a form of interference. (Are Manly not getting penalties to keep the flow going? I don't think he realised what a dangerous statement that was.)

-Independent doctors in the bunkers:

Reference Souths game with Milne being concussed.
I almost cant be bothered:
GA: Independent doctors.are good. (there's cat 1, 2, and unofficial cat 3 head knocks)
Waffle about what docs look for, how they go about it and that they got the Milne decision correct.

Some question was asked about some rolling maul in the dragons game (I didn't see it)
GA said the refs calls when a tackle is completed like like w/e.

Q: Is it a problem that a player thinks a referee is targeting them more so than the language used at the refs. (obv talking about the jwh incident).
GA: I can't talk about jwh specifically as the charge hasn't been done yet (I thought it had...maybe jwh hasn't said he will take the fine) but in general..(and for the 4000th time today).........

GA: Be nice to refs, tone down the language like 'farcical' or 'embarrassment' it's just unwarranted clickbait (he was referring to the media and coaches) but if we want the best refs, treat them better.


THAT'S IT.

I'm tired and typing this on the couch which is 1000000 times less comfy that one may think.

THANK YOU EVERYONE

 

[The Royal Soup]

Hiya champs!

How are you all?

Me.... sheesh, 3 pages of notes on round 11 wrap up! ~applause~..... tears

I've worked out why Graham Annesley waffles on so much.... PAY ATTENTION...

He says something, then he thinks about all the ways what he just said could be interpreted...then says another 500 things to quantify what he said so there's no big headline tomorrow.

Eg: "Refs don't get every decision right."
~thinks~ "Oops... what I mean is that refs get about 98% of decisions right which is good and v'landy said if a kid got 98% in exams they'd be considered a genius...but that doesn't mean we don't try and get 100% but they are only human even with the bunker to use but even then some things are open to interpretation which doesn't mean we don't have rules because we do and anyway be nice to refs."

shizzle like that. It's excruciating.

Ok, if you're still around:
Main topic on conversation was the bunker.
Explained the rules about what happens after tries are scored (god, I'm angry just typing this 10 mins of b/s).

Ref will only refer if he thinks it is a no try
If ref thinks it's a try, bunker immediately starts looking at the last play. If they see something, they tell the ref who then does the video referral sign.
GA was under the impression that we all think the bunker only starts looking when the ref signals. But we all friggen know that when the bunker finds something they signal the ref who stupidly has to pretend they somehow just realised the bunker should (for eg) check grounding when the kicker is about to try and convert said try. fmd...goose.

So: Knights v Broncos.
Was not a obstruction. Riki was a support player and not a lead runner.

He then said it was time to get technical:
Person caught the ball on the inside shoulder then passed it before he ran behind the bronco. Play went on try scored, no problem in GA's mind.
After explaining how technical this was, he said it was a 50/50 call (lolololol)
then said it came down to the individual bunker ref's point of view. (which is stupid as that means there is no consistency and dangerous as there shouldn't be subjectivity in rules application.)
Then said basically the player caught and passed on the inside shoulder of the lead runner = no obstruction. I thought the whole problem was that + shepherding. (I will not comment on that fact he said lead runner after going to great pains before to point out he was a support player)

Same game regarding Gagai's non try for not grounding the ball.
GA: He dropped it. The slow -mo shows he didn't regather. It's a knock on.
GA: We use freeze frames in the nrl because "That's the world we live in."
Heaps of opinions are generated by the media going over everything frame by frame and the nrl will continue to use it.

GA: If the decision went the other way, people would complain that it shouldn't have been a try. This was not a bunker error.

MANLY V EELS:
As predicted:
The Christian tackle was head high and deserved a penalty. Showed 2 camera angles.
Was stupefied that people (ie Des) could simply claim that it wasn't. It was a head high tackle, an accident, but high all the same.

Just because the MRC don't lay charges, doesn't mean it was not an infringement.
Stats! - This year 147 high tackle penalties with only 19 charges by the mrc showing that it doesn't have to be a mrc charge for it to be a high tackle (remember, this guy hates stats...when they prove him wrong)

Q: What do you think the reaction would have been if this happened in the first 10 mins?
GA: Less outrage for sure.
Q: What about the 9-2 penalty count and that Des said cummings will review his game?
GA: Refs are F/T and review all their games anyway. I'm not an apologist for refs (lololol) I say things that they don't like. On mondays we have a meeting and review the issues intensely.
8 mins of waffle o...m...g.
GA: Yeah refs review their games, so what?
GA: Refs will get in trouble if they are found to only be refereeing one side. (Yeah right...bull!)

THAT WAS THE ONLY MANLY INCIDENT DISCUSSED.

Regarding the bunker in the game:
Basically: It's here to stay..
Getting rid of the bunker wouldn't reflect the expectations of the people today because too many things would get missed (then went on to support refs - see opening paragraph)
We need to use the technology.
Stats! - 148 captains challenges this year. 73 were successful. with no bunker, that'd mean ~checks notes~ there'd be 73 more mistakes the refs had made! waffle about how good refs are - see opening paragraph. sigh.

Before he said we do not tell the refs how to ref a game. We don't ask for even penalty counts. It'd be a disaster and incorrect to tell the refs how to control any game.
Now - he said "We're always on the refs to minimise stoppages and keep the game flowing" which absolutely is a form of interference. (Are Manly not getting penalties to keep the flow going? I don't think he realised what a dangerous statement that was.)

-Independent doctors in the bunkers:

Reference Souths game with Milne being concussed.
I almost cant be bothered:
GA: Independent doctors.are good. (there's cat 1, 2, and unofficial cat 3 head knocks)
Waffle about what docs look for, how they go about it and that they got the Milne decision correct.

Some question was asked about some rolling maul in the dragons game (I didn't see it)
GA said the refs calls when a tackle is completed like like w/e.

Q: Is it a problem that a player thinks a referee is targeting them more so than the language used at the refs. (obv talking about the jwh incident).
GA: I can't talk about jwh specifically as the charge hasn't been done yet (I thought it had...maybe jwh hasn't said he will take the fine) but in general..(and for the 4000th time today).........

GA: Be nice to refs, tone down the language like 'farcical' or 'embarrassment' it's just unwarranted clickbait (he was referring to the media and coaches) but if we want the best refs, treat them better.


THAT'S IT.

I'm tired and typing this on the couch which is 1000000 times less comfy that one may think.

THANK YOU EVERYONE

he’s a fuk witt and needs to go

 

[globaleagle]

The part of the wrap up annesley used to show Christian's high tackle.

Annesley backs penalty for Tuipulotu tackle

Graham Annesley confirmed Christian Tuipulotu's tackle on Hayze Perham warranted a penalty on Friday night

www.nrl.com

Including freeze frame and followed by "how can anyone claim it wasn't high?"

I know there's outrage in the 'undisciplined thread' (in which annesley didn't say the eels were more disciplined than manly - he said some teams push the boundaries more than others. But an inference is there)but I'm posting it in here as this thread is mine , all mine

bwah hahah

anyway....

 

[pt73]

The Squeels are more disciplined.

More disciplined in being offside after kicks, being inside the 10 and lying over tackled players way beyond what should be a 6 again or a penalty.

 

[Nordburg]

The part of the wrap up annesley used to show Christian's high tackle.

Annesley backs penalty for Tuipulotu tackle

Graham Annesley confirmed Christian Tuipulotu's tackle on Hayze Perham warranted a penalty on Friday night

www.nrl.com

Including freeze frame and followed by "how can anyone claim it wasn't high?"

I know there's outrage in the 'undisciplined thread' (in which annesley didn't say the eels were more disciplined than manly - he said some teams push the boundaries more than others. But an inference is there)but I'm posting it in here as this thread is mine , all mine

bwah hahah

anyway....

This is the problem the NRL have created for themselves.Because everyone wants consistency,its just a blanket rule where if you make contact with the head,it’s a penalty.It doesn’t allow for common sense or extenuating circumstances,as was the case with Tuipulotu.Yes he makes contact with the head,but first contact was lower and Perham drops quite considerably.Tuipulotu also makes an effort to lower his target,as evidenced by the drop of his height.I’m still dirty on Nathan Brown being in front of the grubber into the in goal that resulted in a Manly drop out late in the game

 

[globaleagle]

Oh boy oh boy oh boy.....

It's our favourite time of the week (weak) woohoo.

Pitter patter, let's get at 'er.

• Dally M tally going behind closed doors now. Currently Hunt on 19, Yeo on 17 and DCE is 7th on 13 points.
• The nrl system is getting players who needed a HIA off the field 37 seconds faster this year than last. That took you 5 seconds to read but Annesley 15 minutes to say.....

Incidents: 4. Two x obstruction, 1 x contact on kickers, 1 x ball grounding.

Obstruction: 5 key indicators. And refs have discretion on 4 of them (not on inside shoulder rule).
1 - Pen v Cows: Defenders (Hiku) made a decision to tackle lead runner, therefore no obstruction but Pen player slid his arm into touch when planting the ball so no try.
2 - dogs v Dragons: Defenders made a decision to tackle Suli, therefore no obstruction and try allowed.
3 - Contact on kickers. Pen v Cows. McClean was late on Cleary. Refs missed it. should have been at least a penalty.
4 - Ball grounding: rorters v sharks. Mcguinnes (sp) did ground the ball, looked at it in slow-mo. Refs got it right. Showed Gagai's (sp) from last week as comparisons were made. Said GG dropped it so we are right, y'all get stuffed.

Any questions? No.
Stream ended.

No, no Manly incidents were analysed. GA did say that he isn't ge from silvertails.

THANK YOU EVERYONE

 

[StuBoot]

Oh boy oh boy oh boy.....

It's our favourite time of the week (weak) woohoo.

Pitter patter, let's get at 'er.

• Dally M tally going behind closed doors now. Currently Hunt on 19, Yeo on 17 and DCE is 7th on 13 points.
• The nrl system is getting players who needed a HIA off the field 37 seconds faster this year than last. That took you 5 seconds to read but Annesley 15 minutes to say.....

Incidents: 4. Two x obstruction, 1 x contact on kickers, 1 x ball grounding.

Obstruction: 5 key indicators. And refs have discretion on 4 of them (not on inside shoulder rule).
1 - Pen v Cows: Defenders (Hiku) made a decision to tackle lead runner, therefore no obstruction but Pen player slid his arm into touch when planting the ball so no try.
2 - dogs v Dragons: Defenders made a decision to tackle Suli, therefore no obstruction and try allowed.
3 - Contact on kickers. Pen v Cows. McClean was late on Cleary. Refs missed it. should have been at least a penalty.
4 - Ball grounding: rorters v sharks. Mcguinnes (sp) did ground the ball, looked at it in slow-mo. Refs got it right. Showed Gagai's (sp) from last week as comparisons were made. Said GG dropped it so we are right, y'all get stuffed.

Any questions? No.
Stream ended.

No, no Manly incidents were analysed. GA did say that he isn't ge from silvertails.

THANK YOU EVERYONE

Re #3 - contact on kickers...

Got me thinking on the weekend..
How is it that when a kicker puts up a bomb the defender is allowed to give him a cuddle ( soft tackle) - effectively stopping him from chasing his kick - but any other kick in general play you do the same thing it's a penalty?

A big issue l know but....

 

[MadMarcus]

Re #3 - contact on kickers...

Got me thinking on the weekend..
How is it that when a kicker puts up a bomb the defender is allowed to give him a cuddle ( soft tackle) - effectively stopping him from chasing his kick - but any other kick in general play you do the same thing it's a penalty?

A big issue l know but....

It’s simple. The NRL wants to encourage cuddles. Eventually they want to see cuddles replace tackles.

 

[rosco]

Oh boy oh boy oh boy.....

It's our favourite time of the week (weak) woohoo.

Pitter patter, let's get at 'er.

• Dally M tally going behind closed doors now. Currently Hunt on 19, Yeo on 17 and DCE is 7th on 13 points.
• The nrl system is getting players who needed a HIA off the field 37 seconds faster this year than last. That took you 5 seconds to read but Annesley 15 minutes to say.....

Incidents: 4. Two x obstruction, 1 x contact on kickers, 1 x ball grounding.

Obstruction: 5 key indicators. And refs have discretion on 4 of them (not on inside shoulder rule).
1 - Pen v Cows: Defenders (Hiku) made a decision to tackle lead runner, therefore no obstruction but Pen player slid his arm into touch when planting the ball so no try.
2 - dogs v Dragons: Defenders made a decision to tackle Suli, therefore no obstruction and try allowed.
3 - Contact on kickers. Pen v Cows. McClean was late on Cleary. Refs missed it. should have been at least a penalty.
4 - Ball grounding: rorters v sharks. Mcguinnes (sp) did ground the ball, looked at it in slow-mo. Refs got it right. Showed Gagai's (sp) from last week as comparisons were made. Said GG dropped it so we are right, y'all get stuffed.

Any questions? No.
Stream ended.

No, no Manly incidents were analysed. GA did say that he isn't ge from silvertails.

THANK YOU EVERYONE

So nothing about facing the sideline to play the ball?

 

[Nordburg]

So nothing about facing the sideline to play the ball?

To be fair,if commented on every every play the ball infraction e.g. not playing it square,not using or attempting to use their foot or playing the ball off the mark,he’d be there for a week