It is disgraceful.
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.Howdy fellow humans!
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.
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.
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!!!!
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."
Thanks GE, but there is one thing in your report that has me confused: the bunker can't rule on a technical infringement.
What does Annusly mean? All the Bunker does is make rulings on technicalities?
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)?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.