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

[maxta]

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)?

Could be anything the NRL want to call it, but Iv'e seen 10,000 tries where a support runner has gone past the attack and then a break is made by the ball runner who runs past to put the player onside (behind), then passes to that exact support player who is deemed onside to score the try, so no difference here I can find.
Tell you 1 thing, if it was a final and Manly were knocked out by this no try decision, there would be a marathon thread on "The Worst call ever", unless of course it was the other team given No Try and we all agree it was a "Great call" and had to be made....

 

[pt73]

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

It also proves that the people using it are either poorly trained, don’t know the rules or are incompetent.

Or all 3.

 

[rj90]

Annesley said that there wasn't enough in the contact yesterday to warrant the escort penalty from the bunker.

More to follow, but that's the main point.

 

[HK_Eagle]

Annesley in full political-mode spin. He has a fair argument with the spirit of the rule, however, the journo is also on the ball by pointing out clearly there was no decision to challenge. Interesting anomaly. However, I think if the Tigers have a legal avenue to pursue they would have a strong argument.

 

[HK_Eagle]

Yes, they make 100s of right decisions, however... that was a decision that was so horribly counter-intuitive and has genuinely brought the integrity of the NRL into question. Just as the NRL has argued for the no fault stand down rule they have to accept the same argument here... That decision has brought the game into disrepute.

 

[cc eagle]

If Tigs had a decent goal kicker the end debacle wouldn't have mattered

 

[HK_Eagle]

Strategically, NRL should have made a decision around follow up action on Kline instead of deflecting it. At least a sacrificial gesture would have helped ease some of the angst. Now, it just comes across as a whole lot of worming and justification.

 

[rj90]

Annesley's refusal to apologise speaks volumes.

'I'm not apologising for a mistake'. D!ckhead.

 

[HK_Eagle]

He's getting called out on the inconsistencies here.

 

[HK_Eagle]

Annesley's refusal to apologise speaks volumes.

'I'm not apologising for a mistake'. D!ckhead.

He hasn't handled this well, IMO... and has misread the depth and breadth of displeasure with what happened. It comes across as arrogant and condescending.

 

[globaleagle]

Usually after the stream finishes a sign comes up and says 'thanks for watching'

amazingly.... this week, this appeared for a few seconds...(it really did!)

 

[The Who]

If Tigs had a decent goal kicker the end debacle wouldn't have mattered

That's irrelevant.
This is about the manipulation of the rules.

 

[pt73]

Fresh twist in Tigers saga: Holmes should’ve been penalised for illegal kick-off

The NRL has admitted the call that cost the Tigers a stunning win was wrong. Now they have another problem.

www.smh.com.au

Should not have been a penalty: NRL admits error in Tigers-Cowboys call​

The NRL has admitted the bunker got it wrong with a contentious call that denied the Wests Tigers a stunning win over North Queensland on Sunday.

NRL head of football Graham Annesley has stood firm in the belief the Cowboys were within their rights to issue a captain’s challenge on the last play of the game, but conceded the final call made by the bunker was incorrect.

The Cowboys trailed by one point when they claimed Tigers centre Asu Kepaoa had run winger Kyle Feldt off the ball from a kick-off with one second remaining on the clock. No penalty was awarded on the field but North Queensland captain Chad Townsend was allowed a challenge.

Bunker official Ashley Klein then opted to award a penalty to North Queensland, in turn giving Valentine Holmes a shot at a match-winning penalty goal, in a decision that has left Tigers officials seething.

“We’re just not satisfied there is enough in that incident to warrant the decision of the bunker to award a penalty,” Annesley said.

“Yes, there was contact, yes, there was a collision. We believe the Wests Tigers players involved was heading towards the ball, he didn’t look over his shoulder to see who was coming behind him. Yes, he ran a slightly strange line to head towards the ball but he was heading towards the ball.

“These are matters of judgement for the officials, but on review this morning we just don’t believe there was enough in that to award a penalty. The captain’s challenge, at that point, should have been dismissed by the bunker as an unsuccessful challenge.”

Annesley remained adamant the Cowboys were within their rights to challenge, despite no call being made by the referee on the field.

“These are matters of judgement for the officials, but on review this morning we just don’t believe there was enough in that to award a penalty. The captain’s challenge, at that point, should have been dismissed by the bunker as an unsuccessful challenge.”

Annesley remained adamant the Cowboys were within their rights to challenge, despite no call being made by the referee on the field.

 

[globaleagle]

I think I'll do a 'fuller' review tomorrow

it's 10.20pm here and ...well...it's hot and I can't be bothered.

 

[cc eagle]

That's irrelevant.
This is about the manipulation of the rules.

He kicks the last conversion and no one's talking about any of it, in fact if he kicked any of the 3 he missed. It's not manipulation of any rules, it's just fans and players don't know the rules

 

[Ron E. Gibbs]

It's not manipulation of any rules, it's just fans and players don't know the rules

No, it's the NRL who doesn't know the rules and has come up with a bizarre "spirit of the rules" explanation to excuse the mistake.

The rules are clear: a challenge is only permissible “in instances where the referee makes a decision that results in the match recommencing with a structured restart”. The rules also state that "a structured restart includes the following: scrum, penalty (tap restart, penalty kick into touch, penalty goal attempt), sixth tackle handover, 20m restart, goal-line drop-out, general play handover, 40/20 or 20/40 restart."

That's all. They say nothing about challenges at the end of a game, which is the NRL's fault for writing a stupid rule in the first place.

 

[mave]

He kicks the last conversion and no one's talking about any of it, in fact if he kicked any of the 3 he missed. It's not manipulation of any rules, it's just fans and players don't know the rules

And neither do you, clearly.

 

[HK_Eagle]

Rules clearly state that the only decisions that can be challenged, have a structured restarts of play (penalty, scrum, drop out).

What does Annesley say “you won’t find anything in black and white that refers specifically to what happened yesterday”

How does the end of the game have a structured restart of play?

The NRL is a bad joke.

His argument was that it lead to a penalty, which is a "structured restart". There are two problems on this issue.

(1) If the challenge was unsuccessful there would be NO structured restart. So, ambiguity there.

(2) He has misconstrued the rule IMO. The rule says... "A challenge is only permissible in instances where the referee makes a decision that results in the match recommencing with a structured restart". The referee made no such decision that was leading to a recommencement.

 

[Spartan Eagle]

Yes, they make 100s of right decisions, however... that was a decision that was so horribly counter-intuitive and has genuinely brought the integrity of the NRL into question. Just as the NRL has argued for the no fault stand down rule they have to accept the same argument here... That decision has brought the game into disrepute.

The bunker should stand down until the court case is decided.

 

[Spartan Eagle]

His argument was that it lead to a penalty, which is a "structured restart". There are two problems on this issue.

(1) If the challenge was unsuccessful there would be NO structured restart. So, ambiguity there.

(2) He has misconstrued the rule IMO. The rule says... "A challenge is only permissible in instances where the referee makes a decision that results in the match recommencing with a structured restart". The referee made no such decision that was leading to a recommencement.

It's clear as crystal as per your bold letters.. Anusly should read the fuken fine print.