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

[pt73]

Well it just keeps getting worse for the NRL.

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

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

As the Wests Tigers await a response from the NRL over the drama that surrounded the controversial finish to Sunday’s game, a fresh twist to the saga has riled the frustrated club.

The Herald can reveal Cowboys centre Valentine Holmes should have been penalised for an illegal kick-off in the moments leading up to the controversial obstruction that decided the game.

To compound the issue, Wests Tigers skipper James Tamou tried to use their captain’s challenge to expose the breach of the rules but referee Chris Butler would not allow him the opportunity to do so.
Under the Rugby League Laws of the Game, it states: “A player who kicks off or drops-out shall be penalised if he advances in front of the appropriate line before kicking the ball”.

After the Cowboys were successful in their contentious challenge, Tamou approached referee Butler.
“Can I challenge that?” Tamou asks.

“You can’t challenge the bunker,” Butler responds.

“Challenge offside, I have a spare challenge,” Tamou said.

“They already cleared that, mate,” Butler then says.

Earlier on Monday the NRL admitted the bunker got it wrong with the contentious escort call that denied the Wests Tigers what would have been 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.

 

[globaleagle]

Ok then.

It's the wrap up you've all already heard about... but I sat through it all, taking notes, so shutup and read! (lol)

Summary: Challenge was allowable, the decision was incorrect to award a penalty.

Annesley: We're starting early today as we know there's only one real incident from one game you want to hear about.
-the incident, well, "it's complicated" (he said channeling his latest facebook relationship status)

-The ref has no control over the 'game time'. the timekeeper tells the ref what time is remaining. The timekeeper said there was one second remaining, so the kickoff was correct in the nrl's view.

-waffle time: the Captain's challenge has 'only' been around for three seasons, and there has been 360 successful challenges so aren't we good for introducing it. (comment - He's said this before but never really clicks that that means there was 360 screw ups that his protected referees made.)

Was the challenge allowable? Answer: Yes.
Why:

• Challenges are allowable after the ref blows the whistle to stop play.

The two whistle process:

• After time expires the ref first blows his whistle at the end of the play to indicate that play is over.
• The second whistle is to signal that the game is over.

Annesley then explained that, for example, if after the first whistle a player deliberately commits a foul (say a swinging arm to the head) then the ref would correctly be able to blow a penalty as he hasn't blown the second whistle.

Annesley: As the challenge was allowable, the bunker looked at it but in his (and the nrl's) opinion, he was not satisfied that there was enough evidence to warrant a penalty. Therefore it was a wrong decision.

~That was it, he then threw it open to questions~

Q: Does the captain have to say what the challenge is for?
A: (waffle) The ref couldn't hear the bunker due to players yelling at him. Ref asked the bunker if NQ had a challenge remaining. The bunker said yes. The ref then asked the nq captain what the challenge was for and he answered 'the escort'. (question not really answered).

Q: How can you challenge something that hasn't been ruled on or called by the ref?
A: The rule is that you can challenge from the ref's whilst back to the previous play the ball, so anything can be challenged whether it was called or not.

Q: Why then does the referee ask the challenging captain; "What are you challenging?" and why can't the captain then say "I'm challenging everything" ?
A: Annesley did NOT ANSWER this question. Instead he waffled on over info already covered in this wrap up. (comment - though I would have loved an answer to it)

Q: In what world does the referee blowing their whistle at fulltime lead to a 'structured re-start?'
A: The penalty kick that was awarded is a re-start.

Then Annesley he got a bit defensive saying that 'we can argue semantics all day long' and that the captain's challenge is only three seasons old and that we'd need a really thick book to cover all instances in which a challenge could be mounted.
He went on about the two whistle system again. 1 to stop play, 2 to rule the game has ended.

He then said there is nothing in black and white about this particular incident.

Q: Have you told the wests tigers (wt) that the bunker was incorrect.
A: Yes.

Q: How do you explain away that the bunker official was the only person to think that a penalty was warranted?
A: Simply 'human error'. In 'this' case the official got it wrong, but they get it right in so many more cases.

Q: So every team can challenge anything after that first 'final' whistle is blown then?
A: Well....they shouldn't just be wasting time.

Annesley then went on about how good the bunker is even if they make the occasional mistake.

Q: What do you think about teams wanting to sue the bunker and the nrl over obviously wrong decisions.
A: I can't comment on that because commenting on that is not up to me.

Danny 'Weirdler' asked some generally irrelevant questions. I think one was 'why isn't Jared Maxwell here? - Annesley said because I am.

Q: where does the buck stop? We want answers!
A: I'm here giving you answers!

Q: Will Klein be demoted?
A: We haven't discussed it yet but met me say that there is no job anywhere more transparent than our referees. But Klein is a great referee and just made a mistake.

Q: will Klein be told he made a mistake?
A: Yes

Q: what do you say to the WT fans whose team doesn't get the two points?
A: I say they don't get the points because they lost the game!
In four years of doing this neither I nor the nrl have ever apologised because I can't apologise for a referee making an honest mistake. They don't do it on purpose, there is no conspiracy. there can't be as we're so scrutinised that it can't happen.

(comment - regarding there's no conspiracy; I'm not saying there is but to say they are so scrutinised so there couldn't be one is disingenuous. If they make a mistake, it's called a mistake, possibly a one week demotion-with full pay- and then they're back at it. Plenty of wiggle room to be corrupt.)

Q: What is the message to fans re: consistency?
A: We strive for consistency but every incident is not exactly the same so consistency is hard to achieve.
He then went on about trying to recruit refs and how hard it is and blah blah blah.

Q: Are better teams getting the rub of the green?
A: No. Better teams seems to have better luck because they are playing ....better.

Q: There is a lot of confusion of this last play, two whistle rule. Not all teams knew you could challenge after the first of those last two whistles.
A: Yeah well...they have a copy of the rules and interpretations, they should study that.

Q: When the ref signals 'time back on' when a player is about to kick, what is the rule there because some refs signal as the player is running in, some signal when the player is just about to contact the ball? This is important as there was only one second left on the clock.
A: 'drumroll' - It's a ref's discretion call but it has to be signalled before there is contact with the ball.

Q: Again, why can't captains now challenge anything after that first final whistle?
A: I guess they can, but if there's nothing, all they are doing is wasting time.


The end.

 

[47MVEagle]

What about the 10 second rule?

 

[pt73]

Referee Klein dropped for Tigers-Cowboys howler​

Ashley Klein is set to be dropped from all officiating duties this week over the decision that robbed Wests Tigers of victory against North Queensland.

Klein was in the bunker when Tigers back Asu Kepaoa was judged to have illegally run Kyle Felt off the ball. The NRL’s head of football, Graham Annesley, has conceded the decision was wrong and cost the Tigers a famous upset victory.

The NRL will announce its refereeing and bunker appointments later on Tuesday, but Klein is expected to be stood down for the weekend.

Rugby League Central is mindful of making its officials accountable and is also conscious of pulling Klein out of the spotlight.

Klein was considered the game’s top whistleblower after officiating the State of Origin matches.

“He’s been our No. 1 referee over recent months. He refereed all three Origins, he’s been operating in the bunker now for many years, he performs to a very high standard. We just don’t agree with the decision he made [on Sunday],” Annesley said on Monday.

“There is no more accountable job than officiating in the NRL. We have a history of putting our hands up when things go wrong. Where we feel there is a justification for officials to be accountable for their decisions through demotion, then those sorts of decisions will be taken.

“He’ll be told we don’t agree with the decision and he’ll be taken through why we don’t agree with that decision. Obviously the appointments are the most obvious way that officials are either appointed or demoted.

“The most important thing is he’ll be taken through from a learning perspective to try and make sure what happened [on Sunday], that all the officials, and they do discuss these things as a group with [referees boss] Jared Maxwell, they look at these incidents when they’re right and when they’re wrong so we can get some commonality amongst them.
“People are always calling for consistency. They look at these things, they break them down and they all try to agree on outcomes so they can then all implement that consistently.”

 

[ricardo]

The NRL thinks you are all idiots

On the 8th April, 1990, the Brisbane Broncos and Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles played out a tough, close game at Lang Park. The Broncos were…

www.theroar.com.au

 

[ricardo]

I remember that day, what a disaster.

 

[pt73]

The NRL thinks you are all idiots

On the 8th April, 1990, the Brisbane Broncos and Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles played out a tough, close game at Lang Park. The Broncos were…

www.theroar.com.au

Great article, obviously Annesley was told not to apologise by the NRL bosses despite the outcry.

Put head in sand and wait for the noise to die down, standard PR crisis advice.

 

[XV-1]

Well it just keeps getting worse for the NRL.

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

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

As the Wests Tigers await a response from the NRL over the drama that surrounded the controversial finish to Sunday’s game, a fresh twist to the saga has riled the frustrated club.

The Herald can reveal Cowboys centre Valentine Holmes should have been penalised for an illegal kick-off in the moments leading up to the controversial obstruction that decided the game.

To compound the issue, Wests Tigers skipper James Tamou tried to use their captain’s challenge to expose the breach of the rules but referee Chris Butler would not allow him the opportunity to do so.
Under the Rugby League Laws of the Game, it states: “A player who kicks off or drops-out shall be penalised if he advances in front of the appropriate line before kicking the ball”.

After the Cowboys were successful in their contentious challenge, Tamou approached referee Butler.
“Can I challenge that?” Tamou asks.

“You can’t challenge the bunker,” Butler responds.

“Challenge offside, I have a spare challenge,” Tamou said.

“They already cleared that, mate,” Butler then says.

Earlier on Monday the NRL admitted the bunker got it wrong with the contentious escort call that denied the Wests Tigers what would have been 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.

A complete joke.

 

[globaleagle]

Former top referee whacks NRL 'smother job'

'I can't believe what I saw'

wwos.nine.com.au

Former referees boss Michael Stone has described the farcical events after Sunday's Cowboys-Tigers game as the biggest "smother job" by league officials in over 30 years.

Stone, a grand final and State of Origin referee, couldn't remember a bigger fiasco since a little-known loophole in the rules cost St George a game in the early 1990s.

"I can't believe what I saw on Sunday and how the NRL then tried to cover its tracks," Stone said of the controversial finish in Townsville.

"It's a smother job, plain and simple - they are making up the rules as they go.

"It reminds me of a Dragons-Sharks game in around 1990 when (Dragons coach) Brian Smith asked officials if the ball was rolling near the deadball line and his fullback had a foot out of play and touched it, would it be a 20-metre tap. As the rules stood then - they were changed very quickly after the game - he was right, but when it happened on the field, the ref ordered a line dropout instead of a 20m tap - and of course the Sharks scored and the Dragons lost.

"Smith got his captain to lodge an official complaint on the field and all hell broke loose. The league went into damage control, made up a bunch of excuses and we are seeing the same here.

"When the referee blew the whistle on Sunday, the game was over - that's why he blew the whistle. The Cowboys jumped up and down and the referee didn't have a clue what to do so he went to the Bunker.

"Poor (Bunker referee) Ashley Klein had no idea and took the soft option of giving the Cowboys the penalty for a blatant dive… no common sense.

"For the NRL to say the game wasn't over and the Cowboys could launch a captain's challenge is pure fantasy. And they do admit they got the challenge wrong, it should not have been a penalty - it's a complete farce - sadly we have learnt little in over 30 years.

"I really couldn't believe what I was watching. I felt for the Tigers - they were dudded."

 

[globaleagle]

More later but round 20 can be summarised thusly:

MRC is independent and have 4 rules to follow. (evidence, player blame, public confidence, anything else)
MRC got every charge/fine/ and no charge correct.
MRC have lots of videos and time to get decisions correct unlike refs (forgot about the bunker I guess).
Luke Patten came on to say why NAS's no charge call was correct.

Then waffle number 5, which is:

Game is fast, refs and players can make mistakes, a mistake at the end of the game gets scrutinised more than one at the start of the game.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Waffle waffle waffle , bull**** and more bull**** , thanks folks see you next week

 

[voicefromthehill]

What about the 10 second rule?

Only applicable to a dropped sausage roll

 

[eagleron]

Most probably because it didn't affect the outcome but that doesn't excuse an obvious bad call.

Maybe the bunker or touchies need to be able to step in with these sort of calls.

Although the touchies seem to be asleep more often than not these

 

[eagleron]

Referee Klein dropped for Tigers-Cowboys howler​

Ashley Klein is set to be dropped from all officiating duties this week over the decision that robbed Wests Tigers of victory against North Queensland.

Klein was in the bunker when Tigers back Asu Kepaoa was judged to have illegally run Kyle Felt off the ball. The NRL’s head of football, Graham Annesley, has conceded the decision was wrong and cost the Tigers a famous upset victory.

The NRL will announce its refereeing and bunker appointments later on Tuesday, but Klein is expected to be stood down for the weekend.

Rugby League Central is mindful of making its officials accountable and is also conscious of pulling Klein out of the spotlight.

Klein was considered the game’s top whistleblower after officiating the State of Origin matches.

“He’s been our No. 1 referee over recent months. He refereed all three Origins, he’s been operating in the bunker now for many years, he performs to a very high standard. We just don’t agree with the decision he made [on Sunday],” Annesley said on Monday.

“There is no more accountable job than officiating in the NRL. We have a history of putting our hands up when things go wrong. Where we feel there is a justification for officials to be accountable for their decisions through demotion, then those sorts of decisions will be taken.

“He’ll be told we don’t agree with the decision and he’ll be taken through why we don’t agree with that decision. Obviously the appointments are the most obvious way that officials are either appointed or demoted.

“The most important thing is he’ll be taken through from a learning perspective to try and make sure what happened [on Sunday], that all the officials, and they do discuss these things as a group with [referees boss] Jared Maxwell, they look at these incidents when they’re right and when they’re wrong so we can get some commonality amongst them.
“People are always calling for consistency. They look at these things, they break them down and they all try to agree on outcomes so they can then all implement that consistently.”

What's the old saying, if bullsh1t was music he'd be a brass band

 

[globaleagle]

Ok... now you're all asleep but I'm awake, here's a bit more about round 20.

Though by this time the media have paid their monkeys to type out their versions so regarding the NAS non charge...

'Forceful tackle': Why NAS was cleared over Egan incident

The MRC considered three charges over the tackle that left Egan with broken teeth but found insufficient evidence for any.

www.nrl.com

Pitter patter, let's get at 'er:

GA: Nothing significant happened this week, ref wise.
- Then made various comments (again) how the match review committee (mrc) and the Judiciary work(again)
- Reminded us (again) that the mrc was independent of the nrl. (So you know something big is coming up as there's some extreme butt covering going on)
- Reminded us (again...fmd) about the four issues the mrc look at to determine if a charge is going to be laid. They are: 1)Evidence, 2)Player Blame, 3)Need to maintain public confidence (hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...oh they're serious wow), and, 4)Anything else in the universe they want to consider(as consistency is over-rated).

As Annesley knew the whole NAS non charge would be a crap show for him, he passed the buck to mrc idiot Luke Patten to video record why NAS wasn't charged. Two things - Patten spoke a lot faster than GA, which Annesley really should take on board and I seem to remember when being asked last week why certain people don't explain their rubbish decisions, Annesley said indignantly..."Because I'm here!"

Patten lied said: the reason no charge for NAS: (there's all the info in the link at the start of this post...)

• Kaufusi contributed (surprise surprise)
• nas- created space so there was no pressure on the neck
• nas- clear right arm separation - so no head slam
• something about an arm diagonally across the other player so only minimal contact to head and neck
• so everyone complaining can g.f.y and that's why no nas charge.
• Seen leaving the video recording with wads of cash sticking out of his pockets (allegedly).

GA: Injury only considered in a grading if the injury was caused by an illegal contact.

Question time:
A lot fewer 'journos' here than last week, meaning someone else than Danny 'clickbait' weirdler got a question in.

Q:Last week a Cronulla player was suspended for an accidental head clash because he didn't show a duty of care when charging out of the line. Why in this case was it decided that NAS didn't show a duty of care?
A: No two incidents are the same. Opinions about incidents will differ. The mrc pour over the evidence for hours.

This has become Annesley's go to answer on too many incidents and journos need to call him out on it. It's total waffle and shows disrespect. It's the equivalent of shrugging one's shoulders and saying 'haters gunna hate'.

Q: Can you understand the fan frustration? The NAS and JWH incidents just have too different an outcome for what is essentially attacking the head of an opponent.
A: No two incidents are the same.(again). Also it depends on what video is available for the mrc to review.

Q: Are the number of cameras the same at every game then?
A: There are a similar number of cameras at every game. But it still depends on the quality of the footage. For example: Did the camera get the best angle? Are there arms and legs everywhere blocking the view of the camera? Issues like that.

Q:Moving on, Tapine was charged (fined $1000) for throwing a punch after he was the recipient of a cannonball style of tackle. Even though the tackle was in the hamstring area, did he need to be injured before the mrc decided that a charge should be laid?
A: The mrc needs to believe that a rule has been breached before they will charge a player.

Q: Are players pushing the boundaries as we're earing the finals?
A: The intensity of games does rise approaching the finals but players still need to play within the rules. (non answer)

Q: Is there a disconnect between the referees and the off field institutions such as the bunker, the mrc, and the judiciary?
A: In many instances...yes! But that's simply because the referees have to make lightning fast decisions in the heat of the game, whereas the off-field and post game institutions get all the video angles and all the time in the world to make judgements. This is why the refs will rule an incident one way which may later be determined not to be charge worthy.

Q: Were the referees better this weekend then least weekend?
A: There was less controversy this past round (round 20) but it depends on the type of game being played. For example a mistake made at the start of the game gets less scrutiny than a mistake made at the end of a game. Players make mistakes as well (this old chestnut...again). If a player drops the ball with the try-line wide open, the level of scrutiny they get depends on when in the game it happened, and the result of that game.

With no more questions and the quota of waffle and regurgitated answers fulfilled for this week, the stream ended.


Thanks champs!

Have a great week.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Q: Is there a disconnect between the referees and the off field institutions such as the bunker, the mrc, and the judiciary?

...and the fans who are watching the games..???
A: Yes!

 

[Dan]

Ok... now you're all asleep but I'm awake, here's a bit more about round 20.

Though by this time the media have paid their monkeys to type out their versions so regarding the NAS non charge...

'Forceful tackle': Why NAS was cleared over Egan incident

The MRC considered three charges over the tackle that left Egan with broken teeth but found insufficient evidence for any.

www.nrl.com

Pitter patter, let's get at 'er:

GA: Nothing significant happened this week, ref wise.
- Then made various comments (again) how the match review committee (mrc) and the Judiciary work(again)
- Reminded us (again) that the mrc was independent of the nrl. (So you know something big is coming up as there's some extreme butt covering going on)
- Reminded us (again...fmd) about the four issues the mrc look at to determine if a charge is going to be laid. They are: 1)Evidence, 2)Player Blame, 3)Need to maintain public confidence (hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...oh they're serious wow), and, 4)Anything else in the universe they want to consider(as consistency is over-rated).

As Annesley knew the whole NAS non charge would be a crap show for him, he passed the buck to mrc idiot Luke Patten to video record why NAS wasn't charged. Two things - Patten spoke a lot faster than GA, which Annesley really should take on board and I seem to remember when being asked last week why certain people don't explain their rubbish decisions, Annesley said indignantly..."Because I'm here!"

Patten lied said: the reason no charge for NAS: (there's all the info in the link at the start of this post...)

• Kaufusi contributed (surprise surprise)
• nas- created space so there was no pressure on the neck
• nas- clear right arm separation - so no head slam
• something about an arm diagonally across the other player so only minimal contact to head and neck
• so everyone complaining can g.f.y and that's why no nas charge.
• Seen leaving the video recording with wads of cash sticking out of his pockets (allegedly).

GA: Injury only considered in a grading if the injury was caused by an illegal contact.

Question time:
A lot fewer 'journos' here than last week, meaning someone else than Danny 'clickbait' weirdler got a question in.

Q:Last week a Cronulla player was suspended for an accidental head clash because he didn't show a duty of care when charging out of the line. Why in this case was it decided that NAS didn't show a duty of care?
A: No two incidents are the same. Opinions about incidents will differ. The mrc pour over the evidence for hours.

This has become Annesley's go to answer on too many incidents and journos need to call him out on it. It's total waffle and shows disrespect. It's the equivalent of shrugging one's shoulders and saying 'haters gunna hate'.

Q: Can you understand the fan frustration? The NAS and JWH incidents just have too different an outcome for what is essentially attacking the head of an opponent.
A: No two incidents are the same.(again). Also it depends on what video is available for the mrc to review.

Q: Are the number of cameras the same at every game then?
A: There are a similar number of cameras at every game. But it still depends on the quality of the footage. For example: Did the camera get the best angle? Are there arms and legs everywhere blocking the view of the camera? Issues like that.

Q:Moving on, Tapine was charged (fined $1000) for throwing a punch after he was the recipient of a cannonball style of tackle. Even though the tackle was in the hamstring area, did he need to be injured before the mrc decided that a charge should be laid?
A: The mrc needs to believe that a rule has been breached before they will charge a player.

Q: Are players pushing the boundaries as we're earing the finals?
A: The intensity of games does rise approaching the finals but players still need to play within the rules. (non answer)

Q: Is there a disconnect between the referees and the off field institutions such as the bunker, the mrc, and the judiciary?
A: In many instances...yes! But that's simply because the referees have to make lightning fast decisions in the heat of the game, whereas the off-field and post game institutions get all the video angles and all the time in the world to make judgements. This is why the refs will rule an incident one way which may later be determined not to be charge worthy.

Q: Were the referees better this weekend then least weekend?
A: There was less controversy this past round (round 20) but it depends on the type of game being played. For example a mistake made at the start of the game gets less scrutiny than a mistake made at the end of a game. Players make mistakes as well (this old chestnut...again). If a player drops the ball with the try-line wide open, the level of scrutiny they get depends on when in the game it happened, and the result of that game.

With no more questions and the quota of waffle and regurgitated answers fulfilled for this week, the stream ended.


Thanks champs!

Have a great week.

really thought he was going to be good in this role but it just shows that they have a complete and utter disrespect and disregard for the people that watch the game every week.

How NAS escapes without punishment for what is clearly a deliberate and dangerous attack is just so far beyond reality.

 

[Sheikheagle]

Yep the Warriors player lost a couple of teeth. Absolute joke.

 

[tookey]

The usual Monday morning comments from Annersley

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=797136774539389

 

[Tragic Eagle]

It is disgraceful.