Annesley's weakly "Why this happened" report - 2022
- Thread starter globaleagle
- Start date
When a the outcome of the game is determined not by the poor interpretation of rules but by not apply the correct rules then the game and the system is broken. When we have to deal with the arrogant non sensical excuses delivered weekly it just confirms that the administration of this once great game is completely broken.
The NRL has been labelled embarrassing for their explanation as to why Storm star Nelson Asofa-Solomona escaped sanction for cracking Wayde Egan’s teeth with his elbow.
Asofa-Solomona was not even charged by the match review committee, despite being placed on report and penalised on the field for slamming his elbow and forearm onto the face of Egan as he fell to the ground in a tackle.
“There were a lot of incidents over the weekend with the Nelson Asofa-Solomona one the most contentious by a long way,” Braith Anasta said on NRL 360.
“What I struggle to come to terms with is I saw a head clash (Dale Finucane on Stephen Crichton) last week get two weeks and I see this and he gets nothing.”
Paul Kent blasted the NRL’s feeble explanation by disputing all three assertions they made around Asofa-Solomona’s actions.
“Let me just bring up some things,” Kent said.
(First) “They said, there is separation out there. If I am going to punch you in the face right now, there is going to be separation at some point between my fist and your face before it gets there, but there will be eventual contact. That’s the first thing.
“Second, there was not enough force to warrant a charge. He cracked his teeth. Two teeth. So not enough force to warrant a charge?
“Third, there was possible contact to the neck and chin area. Again, he cracked his teeth.
“What part of head contact do they not understand there. If you have got cracked teeth from a tackle, how do you say there is not enough force and possible contact to the neck or chin area?”
Paul Crawley labelled Luke Patten and Graham Annesley’s explanation as the dumbest thing ever to come out of NRL HQ in a stunning take-down.
“That’s the dumbest explanation that I have ever heard come out of the NRL from Luke Patten,” Crawley said.
Asofa-Solomona was not even charged by the match review committee, despite being placed on report and penalised on the field for slamming his elbow and forearm onto the face of Egan as he fell to the ground in a tackle.
“There were a lot of incidents over the weekend with the Nelson Asofa-Solomona one the most contentious by a long way,” Braith Anasta said on NRL 360.
“What I struggle to come to terms with is I saw a head clash (Dale Finucane on Stephen Crichton) last week get two weeks and I see this and he gets nothing.”
Paul Kent blasted the NRL’s feeble explanation by disputing all three assertions they made around Asofa-Solomona’s actions.
“Let me just bring up some things,” Kent said.
(First) “They said, there is separation out there. If I am going to punch you in the face right now, there is going to be separation at some point between my fist and your face before it gets there, but there will be eventual contact. That’s the first thing.
“Second, there was not enough force to warrant a charge. He cracked his teeth. Two teeth. So not enough force to warrant a charge?
“Third, there was possible contact to the neck and chin area. Again, he cracked his teeth.
“What part of head contact do they not understand there. If you have got cracked teeth from a tackle, how do you say there is not enough force and possible contact to the neck or chin area?”
Paul Crawley labelled Luke Patten and Graham Annesley’s explanation as the dumbest thing ever to come out of NRL HQ in a stunning take-down.
“That’s the dumbest explanation that I have ever heard come out of the NRL from Luke Patten,” Crawley said.
pt73
Bencher
Did he even bother to talk about this ?
JenEagle
Bencher
Yeah he said it was handled correctly. He showed a transcript of the bunkers discussions as they analysed the situation.
Howdy fellow humans!
So..here we go:
1) GA covered the Harper knock on first. He played the bunker audio, then spoke about the audio (waffle) but there was no real point of issue about Harper being held back.
It was simply: "Harper tries to shield the ball, parra jerk tries to get around him"
GA said (twice) that the process is complicated but he was more interested in showing us all how wonderful the bunker handles complex incidents. The upshot was that serial cheat Atkins simply dismissed all possibility that Harper was held. It was more his fault for trying to block the parra player.
2) The Waqa Blake try: Showed a split screen with Blake's legs in the air, and the ball grounded inside the sideline. Again GA reiterated how awesome the bunker is.
Then GA went into 2 incidents were the bunker isn't awesome. (Let me guess, non-manly games)
3) The cowboys 'no-try' when the ball hit Holmes shoulder.
GA: Bunker got it wrong. The knock on rule is that the ball must be propelled towards the goal line with the hand or upper arm. Even though the bunker said it hit the upper arm, GA said he didn't think so and it was a bunker mistake.
4) Bunker 'non-involment'. Same game, the double movement try. GA: Rule is now- the ref awards the try if he thinks it is one and it's up to the bunker to then check everything. We can see, in this case, that the cowboys player's ball carrying arm hits the ground before the line, he (lelulia?) rolls onto his back and promotes the ball over his head and onto the ground. If he doesn't promote the ball, he doesn't reach the try-line. Bunker should have gotten involved.
So: decisions 1 and 2 were awesomely correct, decisions 3 and 4, unfortunately incorrect.
Questions:
Even though the first three are technically different, they are all designed to illicit a response on something Annesley can't comment on. I've made my views clear on this.
Q: Any comments about Ricky Stuart's comments?
GA: I can't add anything, it's up to Abdo to investigate.
Q: What did you make of the comments?
GA: It doesn't matter what I think.
Q: Ricky has over 100k in fines. Do the NRL need to have something other than fines for a deterrent?
GA: Not trying to dodge the question, but it isn't my decision.
Q: Smith v Alexander comments this week about the storm and their introduction of various tackles. Do you think the Storm are doing these?
GA: I don't buy into the opinions of others so I am not commenting on them. Our role is to look at individual incidents on the field, not clubs or incidents off the field.
Q: Cowboys v Tigers. Is there any resolution to that game yet, where the tigers were looking for the two points?
GA: I know there was a meeting today, the tigers were respectful throughout the process and I think we are close to an announcement, maybe even today. (update: rule to be looked at, no points for the tigers)
Q: Sims tackle. Were you comfortable with a sin binning and not a send off?
GA: Should have been a send off. But refs have to make quick decisions. (actually I thought they could go to the bunker).
Q: What's your opinion of the increasing amount of send offs and sin bins over the last few weeks?
GA: I wish it didn't happen. Games are getting more intense the closer to the finals. Players still have to play within the rules. Historically when there's a spike in incidents, they then quickly flatten out.
Q: Salmon. What do you make of his action?
GA: It was ruled as a grade 1 misdemeanor and I don't want to see that action in the game. I also don't sit on the independent MRC so all actions are up to them.
Q: Any comments on where the grand final is going to be played?
GA: I have no comments and actually I have had no contact nor updates from Abdo. You'll need to speak to him or he'll make an announcement when it's all settled.
That's all folks!
Y'all have a great day y'hear.
The sub-title of this weeks round up is:
"Everything the bunker ruled against Manly was correct, everything ruled against other teams was wrong."So..here we go:
1) GA covered the Harper knock on first. He played the bunker audio, then spoke about the audio (waffle) but there was no real point of issue about Harper being held back.
It was simply: "Harper tries to shield the ball, parra jerk tries to get around him"
GA said (twice) that the process is complicated but he was more interested in showing us all how wonderful the bunker handles complex incidents. The upshot was that serial cheat Atkins simply dismissed all possibility that Harper was held. It was more his fault for trying to block the parra player.
2) The Waqa Blake try: Showed a split screen with Blake's legs in the air, and the ball grounded inside the sideline. Again GA reiterated how awesome the bunker is.
Then GA went into 2 incidents were the bunker isn't awesome. (Let me guess, non-manly games)
3) The cowboys 'no-try' when the ball hit Holmes shoulder.
GA: Bunker got it wrong. The knock on rule is that the ball must be propelled towards the goal line with the hand or upper arm. Even though the bunker said it hit the upper arm, GA said he didn't think so and it was a bunker mistake.
4) Bunker 'non-involment'. Same game, the double movement try. GA: Rule is now- the ref awards the try if he thinks it is one and it's up to the bunker to then check everything. We can see, in this case, that the cowboys player's ball carrying arm hits the ground before the line, he (lelulia?) rolls onto his back and promotes the ball over his head and onto the ground. If he doesn't promote the ball, he doesn't reach the try-line. Bunker should have gotten involved.
So: decisions 1 and 2 were awesomely correct, decisions 3 and 4, unfortunately incorrect.
Questions:
Even though the first three are technically different, they are all designed to illicit a response on something Annesley can't comment on. I've made my views clear on this.
Q: Any comments about Ricky Stuart's comments?
GA: I can't add anything, it's up to Abdo to investigate.
Q: What did you make of the comments?
GA: It doesn't matter what I think.
Q: Ricky has over 100k in fines. Do the NRL need to have something other than fines for a deterrent?
GA: Not trying to dodge the question, but it isn't my decision.
Q: Smith v Alexander comments this week about the storm and their introduction of various tackles. Do you think the Storm are doing these?
GA: I don't buy into the opinions of others so I am not commenting on them. Our role is to look at individual incidents on the field, not clubs or incidents off the field.
Q: Cowboys v Tigers. Is there any resolution to that game yet, where the tigers were looking for the two points?
GA: I know there was a meeting today, the tigers were respectful throughout the process and I think we are close to an announcement, maybe even today. (update: rule to be looked at, no points for the tigers)
Q: Sims tackle. Were you comfortable with a sin binning and not a send off?
GA: Should have been a send off. But refs have to make quick decisions. (actually I thought they could go to the bunker).
Q: What's your opinion of the increasing amount of send offs and sin bins over the last few weeks?
GA: I wish it didn't happen. Games are getting more intense the closer to the finals. Players still have to play within the rules. Historically when there's a spike in incidents, they then quickly flatten out.
Q: Salmon. What do you make of his action?
GA: It was ruled as a grade 1 misdemeanor and I don't want to see that action in the game. I also don't sit on the independent MRC so all actions are up to them.
Q: Any comments on where the grand final is going to be played?
GA: I have no comments and actually I have had no contact nor updates from Abdo. You'll need to speak to him or he'll make an announcement when it's all settled.
That's all folks!
Y'all have a great day y'hear.
@globaleagle appreciate you listening to his bullsh!t so we don't have to! Thank you!
The Who
Journey Man
I thought the Eels' were robbed with the so-called micro knock-on when they 'scored' under the posts. It looked like a try to me and I was close to the action. Then I watched a reply of the TV coverage and it again looked like a try. Thank goodness it favoured Manly although it didn't matter in the end.
I still believe the Bunker creates more doubts than it solves.
tookey
First Grader
Don't think so
The bunker replay at the ground didn't even go back to where Harper was grabbed by Penisini so they didn't even look at the issue
Usual Manly treatment
Brissie Kid
Bencher
They need to dump the bunker and go back to ingoal touch judges. Every summer on Fox they show replays of mid 1990s games with ingoal touch judges. In combo with the referee and the sideline touchies, having the ingoal touchies, every try was awarded or disallowed very quickly and seemingly was never wrong.
This would get rid of worrying about everything else the bunker has blundered its way into between the two goal lines, including blocking, obstructions etc. Leave it to the onfield officials like every other tackle, instead of interfering just because a try was scored.
It would also speed the game up to the way rugby league was meant to be played and watched. The way it used to be before the blunker.
This would get rid of worrying about everything else the bunker has blundered its way into between the two goal lines, including blocking, obstructions etc. Leave it to the onfield officials like every other tackle, instead of interfering just because a try was scored.
It would also speed the game up to the way rugby league was meant to be played and watched. The way it used to be before the blunker.
Ref admits mistake!
And Annesley not running behind him yelling "but so do plaaaaaayers!!!!
www.foxsports.com.au
Veteran rugby league referee Ben Cummins has opened up about his infamous mistake during the 2019 NRL grand final, confessing he felt “ashamed” and “worthless” after the incident.
Scores were tied at 8-8 late in the second half of the decider between the Sydney Roosters and Canberra Raiders when Cummins called “six again” after a Raiders attacking kick came off one of their players.
Canberra five-eighth Jack Wighton grabbed the ball and charged into the defensive line believing it was the first tackle of the set, but Cummins reversed his call as the tackle was being made, meaning Canberra had to hand over the Steeden.
“I realised I stuffed up big time and I tried to correct the call – which would have been the right call,” Cummins said.
“But Jack Wighton didn’t see that and he got tackled and the Roosters get the ball and go down the length of the field in the next set and score.
“I realised then that this was big at eight-all in a grand final.
“It doesn’t get much bigger than this.
“I walked into the tunnel and cameras were all on me … my heart sunk.”
"I thought, I'd better screw Manly over even more now to make people like me again."
And Annesley not running behind him yelling "but so do plaaaaaayers!!!!
‘I stuffed up big time’: Veteran referee opens up about infamous NRL grand final mistake
‘I stuffed up big time’: Veteran referee opens up about infamous grand final mistake
www.foxsports.com.au
Veteran rugby league referee Ben Cummins has opened up about his infamous mistake during the 2019 NRL grand final, confessing he felt “ashamed” and “worthless” after the incident.
Scores were tied at 8-8 late in the second half of the decider between the Sydney Roosters and Canberra Raiders when Cummins called “six again” after a Raiders attacking kick came off one of their players.
Canberra five-eighth Jack Wighton grabbed the ball and charged into the defensive line believing it was the first tackle of the set, but Cummins reversed his call as the tackle was being made, meaning Canberra had to hand over the Steeden.
“I realised I stuffed up big time and I tried to correct the call – which would have been the right call,” Cummins said.
“But Jack Wighton didn’t see that and he got tackled and the Roosters get the ball and go down the length of the field in the next set and score.
“I realised then that this was big at eight-all in a grand final.
“It doesn’t get much bigger than this.
“I walked into the tunnel and cameras were all on me … my heart sunk.”
"I thought, I'd better screw Manly over even more now to make people like me again."
When you are ready Shayne Hayne 2013 GF, dont be shy nowRef admits mistake!
And Annesley not running behind him yelling "but so do plaaaaaayers!!!!
‘I stuffed up big time’: Veteran referee opens up about infamous NRL grand final mistake
‘I stuffed up big time’: Veteran referee opens up about infamous grand final mistake
Veteran rugby league referee Ben Cummins has opened up about his infamous mistake during the 2019 NRL grand final, confessing he felt “ashamed” and “worthless” after the incident.
Scores were tied at 8-8 late in the second half of the decider between the Sydney Roosters and Canberra Raiders when Cummins called “six again” after a Raiders attacking kick came off one of their players.
Canberra five-eighth Jack Wighton grabbed the ball and charged into the defensive line believing it was the first tackle of the set, but Cummins reversed his call as the tackle was being made, meaning Canberra had to hand over the Steeden.
“I realised I stuffed up big time and I tried to correct the call – which would have been the right call,” Cummins said.
“But Jack Wighton didn’t see that and he got tackled and the Roosters get the ball and go down the length of the field in the next set and score.
“I realised then that this was big at eight-all in a grand final.
“It doesn’t get much bigger than this.
“I walked into the tunnel and cameras were all on me … my heart sunk.”
"I thought, I'd better screw Manly over even more now to make people like me again."
Howdy heroes (and others)
Not a lot this week so as to allow us to get the end of season golf clubs shiny and new. ~sigh~
4 incidents:
1) Roosters v NQ
Where lodge holds onto a NQ player at the scrum and Verrills runs over and scores.
GA: Should not have been a try, but Roosters would have received a penalty as all the NQ backs were offside (on the rhs).
Q: What type of penalty? A: Differential.
2) Roosters v NQ (same game).
Daniel Tupou tackled, dragged by Hiku. Tupou passes the ball after 'held' was called and a NQ intercepts. Penalty Roosters!
GA: Ref got that one right. The tackle was completed. Hiku then does a second effort. There's the penalty. Tupou only throws the ball as he's being dragged towards the touch line.
3) Broncos v Knights.
Best runs in and scores but a lead runner had collided with Reynolds. Try was awarded and confirmed.
GA: ref / Bunker got it right. According to obstruction rule 1 (c) the ref and bunker have discretion on determining if the contact made by a lead runner would not have impacted the try (something like that). Annesley said a few years ago the rule was any contact on the outside shoulder of a defender was obstruction. Everyone complained when the defender had no chance in stopping the try...so the discretion option was brought in. Determined Reynolds had no chance, so try was the correct call.
4) The full time incident in the Raiders v St George game.
GA: Ref got it right.
As this was the most talked about, here's the link.
www.foxsports.com.au
I wont got into it in detail but Annesley basically said:
Questions:
Q) Gutho deliberately knocked the ball forward in stopping a try. Should that have been a penalty try or a sin bin or both?
A) Neither. A penalty was sufficient. It was intentional but it was in the act of stopping a try, so only a penalty.
Q) Ponga and Mann video. What's the NRL's read on that?
A) It's not my responsibility and so I can't comment. I haven't been told anything from NRL HQ but I know the integrity unit are looking into it.
End of stream
Thanks everyone!
Drinks are on.... your shelf or in your fridge.
Not a lot this week so as to allow us to get the end of season golf clubs shiny and new. ~sigh~
4 incidents:
1) Roosters v NQ
Where lodge holds onto a NQ player at the scrum and Verrills runs over and scores.
GA: Should not have been a try, but Roosters would have received a penalty as all the NQ backs were offside (on the rhs).
Q: What type of penalty? A: Differential.
2) Roosters v NQ (same game).
Daniel Tupou tackled, dragged by Hiku. Tupou passes the ball after 'held' was called and a NQ intercepts. Penalty Roosters!
GA: Ref got that one right. The tackle was completed. Hiku then does a second effort. There's the penalty. Tupou only throws the ball as he's being dragged towards the touch line.
3) Broncos v Knights.
Best runs in and scores but a lead runner had collided with Reynolds. Try was awarded and confirmed.
GA: ref / Bunker got it right. According to obstruction rule 1 (c) the ref and bunker have discretion on determining if the contact made by a lead runner would not have impacted the try (something like that). Annesley said a few years ago the rule was any contact on the outside shoulder of a defender was obstruction. Everyone complained when the defender had no chance in stopping the try...so the discretion option was brought in. Determined Reynolds had no chance, so try was the correct call.
4) The full time incident in the Raiders v St George game.
GA: Ref got it right.
As this was the most talked about, here's the link.
‘It’s irrelevant’: NRL defends controversial finish, reveals why ref got it right
‘It’s irrelevant’: NRL defends controversial finish, reveals why ref got it right
www.foxsports.com.au
I wont got into it in detail but Annesley basically said:
- STG could have challenged but they didn't have one so boohoo to them.
- If they challenged they would have lost, as the STG player knocked the ball on (lost it) and the bunker can't rule on a technical infringement.
- Quote: “The ball is not in play,” he said.
“There’s no possibility for the ball carrier to get up and play the ball in order to get another tackle.
“Regardless of any infringement that might take place by the defender – other than foul play – it’s irrelevant because the ball hasn’t been brought back into play and the referee can’t extend the play for a technical infringement to award a penalty.
Questions:
Q) Gutho deliberately knocked the ball forward in stopping a try. Should that have been a penalty try or a sin bin or both?
A) Neither. A penalty was sufficient. It was intentional but it was in the act of stopping a try, so only a penalty.
Q) Ponga and Mann video. What's the NRL's read on that?
A) It's not my responsibility and so I can't comment. I haven't been told anything from NRL HQ but I know the integrity unit are looking into it.
End of stream
Thanks everyone!
Drinks are on.... your shelf or in your fridge.
Thx Global.
In regards to the STG non-penalty incident. GA basically said that the time keeper was counting down time in the ref's ear piece (as is done in every game). He said that essentially time had run out in the early stages of that final tackle and whatever happened after that was irrelevant (ie; the holding down longer). I got the explanation and it was reasonable and understandable.
However, where I have a real issue is in the grey area of time-keeping and accountability. I am tired of the NRL using the excuse that there is sometimes a difference between the official time and what is presented on TV. OK, got it. So, why the f*** don't they align the official time-keeping to what is presented on the broadcast? With our multi-billion dollar NASA space station tutti frutti bunker technology, surely it couldn't be that difficult to arrange. It would rule out one grey area where the NRL could avoid any accusations of manipulation (or at worst, corruption).
In regards to the STG non-penalty incident. GA basically said that the time keeper was counting down time in the ref's ear piece (as is done in every game). He said that essentially time had run out in the early stages of that final tackle and whatever happened after that was irrelevant (ie; the holding down longer). I got the explanation and it was reasonable and understandable.
However, where I have a real issue is in the grey area of time-keeping and accountability. I am tired of the NRL using the excuse that there is sometimes a difference between the official time and what is presented on TV. OK, got it. So, why the f*** don't they align the official time-keeping to what is presented on the broadcast? With our multi-billion dollar NASA space station tutti frutti bunker technology, surely it couldn't be that difficult to arrange. It would rule out one grey area where the NRL could avoid any accusations of manipulation (or at worst, corruption).
Sorry The Who, not super clear so here is GA's quote.
GA said this:
“Regardless of any infringement that might take place by the defender – other than foul play – it’s irrelevant because the ball hasn’t been brought back into play and the referee can’t extend the play for a technical infringement to award a penalty."
__________________________________________________________________________
I think it was the fact that time had run out and the tackled player still had the ball, hadn't gotten up, hadn't played the ball, so the ball was not in play. In this case the ref can't rule on any technical infringements as time has expired. The exception is for foul play.
I'm guessing that if STG (and for example) said to the ref... 'hey, the raiders guy pushed me over as I was trying to get up to play the ball!'
The ref would answer 'maybe, but he did that after time expired, so there's nothing we can do.'
It's probably better explained in the link, but it seems we're talking about split second determinations here.
47MVEagle
Bencher
Didn't Annesley write off another ref howler recently by saying the ref hadn't yet called time (or blown his whistle to signify the game was over)?
So apparently the time keeper is in the ref's ear counting down the remaining seconds until the siren goes off but the ref still has to blow his whistle AND call time before the game is officially over?
Sounds to me like Annesley just makes it up as he goes along.
Last edited:
The Who
Journey Man
There was a time when I thought rugby league was a simple game.
Users who are viewing this thread
Staff online
-
JethroStar Trekkin' across the universe
| Team | P | W | L | PD | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
