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

[mike walker]

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

G'day all, which begs the question of why the bloke playing the ball is not subject to the same scrutiny as the tackler.
cheers mike

 

[pt73]

G'day all, which begs the question of why the bloke playing the ball is not subject to the same scrutiny as the tackler.
cheers mike

I’ve seen it penalised before.

 

[Ron E. Gibbs]

I’ve seen it penalised before.

And you almost certainly would have seen it penalised if a Manly player attempted it. It's a penalty every day of the week.

 

[globaleagle]

Round 13 wrap up.

Not much here today folks. Annesley didn't even bother to stand next to his big impressive tv.

One incident.
Raiders v Roosters In which (apparently) there was much media outcry over a 'forward' pass allowing the roosters to get back into the game.

• said criticism was over the top 'howler' etc isn't needed, nor accurate.
• then showed the incident with freeze frame and slo-mos'
• Said the RULE is: the direction of the pass is relative to the player making it, and not relative to the direction of ball travelling over the ground. This is obviously to take into account of the players momentum.
• Annesley concluded with there was no way this pass was forward.

After a question about the new tech footy balls re forward passes, the rest of the 25 min briefing was about the new judiciary changes regarding suspensions, and fines for rep games.

thanks!

 

[globaleagle]

Round 18 wrap up.

Yeah that's right, I didn't do a few weeks. wotcha gunna do?

lol

n-e-way...

35 min stream. first 8 or so was stats from the soo, which I have deleted all info from my memory banks.

"Issues"

1 - NQ v Cro. The JT no try because robson got in the way. Annesley admitted that it 'was true' that robson can't disappear (probably a relief to all mankind) but said he gets in front of JT, gets in the way of defenders...so it's one of those things but it's a no try.

2 - NQ v Cro: Hess comes out of the line to tackle Finucain (sp) who doesn't have the ball.
ref blows a penalty BUT Annesley says that as Cro was on the try line, the ref could have let play go on to see if they scored. We're "always" looking for continuity and even though the ref was right, he could've allowed play to continue.

3 - Bri v titans: double movement. Bronco player's arm carrying the ball hits the ground, he then promotes it. double movement so stfu whiners.

4 - Bri v titans. Sami (titans) drops the ball over the line. Just, but hand comes away from the ball and he doesn't regain control. Correct dec so... stfu whiners.

On these decisions Annesley said that people often claim 'we' should watch things in real time but nope. We have the high def technology so things will be looked at in minute detail. It's the way things are. So.... stfu whiners.

5 - Wests v Panthers: Tamou tackled without the ball (replays show that actually, it was a panthers leg, clipping tamou's calf that causes him to fall over - like an ankle tap).
It was a MISTAKE that the officials didn't see the hand on the wests player and therefore a penalty for tackling without the ball should have been awarded. Not worthy of a sin-bin as he was still 50 metres out with defenders in front of him.

A few non important questions followed (re sin bin) then globaleagle, I mean annesley closed the wrap up.

thank you bbq experts and

haveagreatweek.

 

[The Who]

You need a medal for wading through all the Anus-y crap each week. But I must admit I'm intrigued in how he tries to justify on field mistakes.
I do take exception to his comment rubbishing calls (mine included) about reviewing things in 'real time'. To him I say: If you want us to watch RL in stop-frame then issue us all with the necessary high-technology goggles to be able to change perception. Give a pair to all the officials too, because my eyes keep deceiving me.
I hate the way we now have to wait for CSI to rule before we can celebrate a try; it kills the moment, and when the fate of a match is decided by Big Brother declaring a player's intention on stop frame 'evidence' then you know technology has killed the sport that Tina Turner so correctly espoused: "What you see is what you get".
Not now you don't.

 

[eagle66]

"Issues"

1 - NQ v Cro. The JT no try because robson got in the way. Annesley admitted that it 'was true' that robson can't disappear (probably a relief to all mankind) but said he gets in front of JT, gets in the way of defenders...so it's one of those things but it's a no try.

So what happens when a player is streaking away for a runaway try and we often see a support player running along side/behind him in an effort to hinder the defence catchin him. I have that JT try similar to that scenario not one where players are running through the line and the ball player is running behind/adjacent.

 

[globaleagle]

You need a medal for wading through all the Anus-y crap each week. But I must admit I'm intrigued in how he tries to justify on field mistakes.
I do take exception to his comment rubbishing calls (mine included) about reviewing things in 'real time'. To him I say: If you want us to watch RL in stop-frame then issue us all with the necessary high-technology goggles to be able to change perception. Give a pair to all the officials too, because my eyes keep deceiving me.
I hate the way we now have to wait for CSI to rule before we can celebrate a try; it kills the moment, and when the fate of a match is decided by Big Brother declaring a player's intention on stop frame 'evidence' then you know technology has killed the sport that Tina Turner so correctly espoused: "What you see is what you get".
Not now you don't.

Thank you.

EDIT: He justifies ref's mistakes by saying "they are human and players also make mistakes."

I've heard him roll this line out, especially when there's been a howler or two and the media are ripping in. Sometimes he says 'the ref should have seen that and given a penalty'. - he said that this week.
If it is a big "game costing" one, he'll whine about everyone is human so "leave Brittany alone".



He justifies the high def fame by frame analysis by saying that the technology is there and if the nrl say this about a double movement (for example): "well the ball only just brushed the grass so...we'll rule a play on", then the team on the other side will scream about the wrong call and say "the rule is there and the vision is there."

Annesley says as the technology is available for coaches, media, uncle nick, and the powers at be to review the game to ensure the correct decisions are made, then the referees (and the bunker) really have no option but to rule the game as such.

Now...this doesn't for such discrepancies like how they review on millimetre actions, yet allow kickers taking penalties 2 to 3 metres in front of where the ref blew the whistle and set the mark.

Now I'm not offering you an opinion either way, I was just trying to say what he says just in case you weren't sure of the justifications.

I'm sure we could all find a lot of things they 'let go' in the interest of continuity - which he also says the nrl are striving for each week (a free flowing game).

~deep breath~

 

[globaleagle]

"Issues"

1 - NQ v Cro. The JT no try because robson got in the way. Annesley admitted that it 'was true' that robson can't disappear (probably a relief to all mankind) but said he gets in front of JT, gets in the way of defenders...so it's one of those things but it's a no try.

So what happens when a player is streaking away for a runaway try and we often see a support player running along side/behind him in an effort to hinder the defence catching him. I have that JT try similar to that scenario not one where players are running through the line and the ball player is running behind/adjacent.

I think his ruling in that instance would be:
As the support player is behind the player with the ball he is allowed to run where-ever and as long as contact any with an opposing player is via 'hip and or shoulders', then it'd be a try.

It was more that Robson was in front of JT, causing an obstruction to the defending players in an effort to tackle JT.

I mean obviously the wording would be more long winded and technical, but that's my take on it.

 

[Will on the hill]

You need a medal for wading through all the Anus-y crap each week. But I must admit I'm intrigued in how he tries to justify on field mistakes.
I do take exception to his comment rubbishing calls (mine included) about reviewing things in 'real time'. To him I say: If you want us to watch RL in stop-frame then issue us all with the necessary high-technology goggles to be able to change perception. Give a pair to all the officials too, because my eyes keep deceiving me.
I hate the way we now have to wait for CSI to rule before we can celebrate a try; it kills the moment, and when the fate of a match is decided by Big Brother declaring a player's intention on stop frame 'evidence' then you know technology has killed the sport that Tina Turner so correctly espoused: "What you see is what you get".
Not now you don't.

If the broadcasters, media, coaching staff and fans agree to never look at slow motion replays or freeze frame images I'm sure the refs would love to adjudicate in real time only. Unfortunately that will never happen so it is what it is.

 

[eagle66]

I think his ruling in that instance would be:
As the support player is behind the player with the ball he is allowed to run where-ever and as long as contact any with an opposing player is via 'hip and or shoulders', then it'd be a try.

It was more that Robson was in front of JT, causing an obstruction to the defending players in an effort to tackle JT.

I mean obviously the wording would be more long winded and technical, but that's my take on it.

Sorry, I refuse to accept logic and good reasoning as a rebuttal. It does not auger well for an online forum. How old are you?

 

[maxta]

I think his ruling in that instance would be:
As the support player is behind the player with the ball he is allowed to run where-ever and as long as contact any with an opposing player is via 'hip and or shoulders', then it'd be a try.

It was more that Robson was in front of JT, causing an obstruction to the defending players in an effort to tackle JT.

I mean obviously the wording would be more long winded and technical, but that's my take on it.

This may seem a bit trivial, but the comments don't add up.
Robson is supporting JT and then runs past him....how is it when the defenders were behind JT obstructed by Robson if he is in front of them - it's physically impossible??
I do realise as a support Robson does actually get in front after not getting the pass, but the defenders were behind right ??
That means by the time the defenders got within tackling range, Robson dropped back onside by the time of collision and therefore it was a try.
Otherwise the officials are claiming the defenders were in front of JT and they 100% were behind him in attempting to make the tackle apart from the 4 players he had run over before being in the clear and chased.

 

[globaleagle]

This may seem a bit trivial, but the comments don't add up.
Robson is supporting JT and then runs past him....how is it when the defenders were behind JT obstructed by Robson if he is in front of them - it's physically impossible??
I do realise as a support Robson does actually get in front after not getting the pass, but the defenders were behind right ??
That means by the time the defenders got within tackling range, Robson dropped back onside by the time of collision and therefore it was a try.
Otherwise the officials are claiming the defenders were in front of JT and they 100% were behind him in attempting to make the tackle apart from the 4 players he had run over before being in the clear and chased.

If it helps, Annesley starts talking about it at approx 6 m 14 secs in.

If it doesn't help, Annesley still starts talking about it at approx 6 m 14 secs in.

Graham Annesley weekly football briefing - Round 18

NRL head of football elite competitions Graham Annesley holds his weekly football briefing relating to round 18 of the 2022 Telstra Premiership.

www.nrl.com

(It'll take less time to watch it then decipher any of my gibberish) lol

 

[maxta]

If it helps, Annesley starts talking about it at approx 6 m 14 secs in.

If it doesn't help, Annesley still starts talking about it at approx 6 m 14 secs in.

Graham Annesley weekly football briefing - Round 18

NRL head of football elite competitions Graham Annesley holds his weekly football briefing relating to round 18 of the 2022 Telstra Premiership.

www.nrl.com

(It'll take less time to watch it then decipher any of my gibberish) lol

I actually watched this already and still am confused.
The thing is - I get Robson was fine supporting "untill he got in front" of JT.
At this point, if he took out a player ahead like a fullback or winger maybe I get it....don't agree as common sense tells me he can't disappear, but the point would be valid.
Thing is, the defenders were coming from behind and if Robson is in front they would have clear access to JT, so the arguement lacks integrity and is another NRL copout to a bad decision where a player supporting who did not even change lanes to take out a defender, is penalised.
Anyways....I'm over the trivia, but I need the explanation to make sense, as this is a math teacher telling me 2 + 1 = 8 and though he is in charge, it doesn't make it right.

 

[globaleagle]

dunno (sorry)

 

[The Who]

This discussion simply goes to prove that technology -- introduced to improve decision-making -- has created the opposite, replacing common sense with nonsense.

 

[Tragic Eagle]

I don't listen to him anymore IMO he is a waste of our time and the NRL's money.

 

[dowdz]

I actually watched this already and still am confused.
The thing is - I get Robson was fine supporting "untill he got in front" of JT.
At this point, if he took out a player ahead like a fullback or winger maybe I get it....don't agree as common sense tells me he can't disappear, but the point would be valid.
Thing is, the defenders were coming from behind and if Robson is in front they would have clear access to JT, so the arguement lacks integrity and is another NRL copout to a bad decision where a player supporting who did not even change lanes to take out a defender, is penalised.
Anyways....I'm over the trivia, but I need the explanation to make sense, as this is a math teacher telling me 2 + 1 = 8 and though he is in charge, it doesn't make it right.

I don't understand either. What happens if he popped a late off load? He is still a support player yes?

 

[The Who]

I don't listen to him anymore IMO he is a waste of our time and the NRL's money.

Agreed. If the NRL was serious about transparency it would (a) allow the refs to be quizzed after each match and/or (b) release the findings of their reviews into the performance of each ref after each game.
Remember when Anus-ly said they had yet to review Cumstains' rort when we played Doesn'tmatta in round 11? How did they rate him? I'm sure he got an A for cheating. So why don't they share the reviews with sausage-eaters like us?
One thing that has not slipped my attention is that the NRL hasn't assigned Cumstains to any of our matches since. Long may that continue.

 

[47MVEagle]

Is it possible that once Robson overran JT he is deemed offside or out-of-play until JT puts him back onside/in-play so Robson dropping back (putting himself back in play illegally?) is seen as an infringement (because it was a try scoring situ)?