Annesley's weakly "Why this happened" report - 2024 edition.

[maxta]

Here's the thing - it can't be different rules due to the jersey the player wears for basically the same incident !!
The 10 minutes sinbin is a stock standard call on a direct hit to the head every day and that's all there is to it....
Also, if the player takes out an opposition player who can't return due to "dirty/foul play", that player is not just off for 10m but can't return either and another player off the bench comes on after the 10 mins is up ?

 

[Rackets]

yep, case in point JWH, how many times has he been let off, but he tested the scam one to often and got 4 weeks after rolling the dice and losing.

Sualii is another whose been charged 4 times for knee lifting and everytime it's only a fine. No sin bin and no weeks off.

 

[The Right Edge]

So the 45 sec review of the Saab incident wasn't enough to make a call other than put on report.A) They assessed it was the arm that hit him and it slipped up. They failed to see the shoulder make the hit. Bunker doesn't know if the player is injured - Saab left the field for HIA immediately according to NRL play by Play.

So did Klien in the bunker have more time last night and did he know that the player was injured and wouldn't return after all he left the field 2 minutes later rather than at the time?

Will be interesting to hear how the two incidents are so totally different.

 

[Rackets]

Will be interesting to hear how the two incidents are so totally different.

That's easy. One involves the roosters, protected team and in the top 4, while the other involves a team coming last.

 

[MissKate]

So the 45 sec review of the Saab incident wasn't enough to make a call other than put on report.A) They assessed it was the arm that hit him and it slipped up. They failed to see the shoulder make the hit. Bunker doesn't know if the player is injured - Saab left the field for HIA immediately according to NRL play by Play.

So did Klien in the bunker have more time last night and did he know that the player was injured and wouldn't return after all he left the field 2 minutes later rather than at the time?

Will be interesting to hear how the two incidents are so totally different.

Well we never find out about comparing offences as annesley doesn’t answer curly questions like that, or if he does he just waffles endlessly and everyone forgets what the question was

 

[eaglebuzz]

Jennings should have gone to the bin at minimum. I'd argue his hit was more forceful than Olam's last night.

 

[Tragic Eagle]

The fountain of knowledge which is actually the fountain of bull sh-t!

 

[manly al]

Here's the thing - it can't be different rules due to the jersey the player wears for basically the same incident !!
The 10 minutes sinbin is a stock standard call on a direct hit to the head every day and that's all there is to it....
Also, if the player takes out an opposition player who can't return due to "dirty/foul play", that player is not just off for 10m but can't return either and another player off the bench comes on after the 10 mins is up ?

Probably quite a bit of merit in your second suggestion there and could act as a major deterrent to the more careless type of high shots.
Especially in the Saab instance and him being much taller then Jennings and just no requirement really to aim in so high in the practical sense

 

[globaleagle]

OK except for a couple of minor things....

refs got the blocker calls correct
refs got the 10 min sin bin correct

refs got everything else right

'case closed' as he said

- Reminder to not shoot the messenger!!!!!!

 

[frank stokes]

OK except for a couple of minor things....

refs got the blocker calls correct
refs got the 10 min sin bin correct

refs got everything else right

'case closed' as he said

- Reminder to not shoot the messenger!!!!!!

If the refs got the blocker calls correct then the issue is the rule...

Using Newcastle as an example... the two players (forwards?) ran decoy lines to make the defenders consider an option where the Knights shifted the ball to the left... once the pass went to Ponga, those decoys stopped their run and did not move to impede defenders running to defend the fieldgoal...

The decoys stopped short of the defensive line and the chasers (incl. Kennedy as the primary chaser) were not impeded... Kennedy had every chance to run past the decoys and any change to his line was an issue with his own positional play...

It is another example of refs and the NRL looking to fix a problem that does not exist... the game is massively over-reffed generally these days and then, come SOO or the GF, suddenly the whistle gets put away and we have a "spectacle"... gmf what the monkeys in the offices are trying to achieve...

 

[globaleagle]

With regards to Annesleys' blocker penalty comments, he said this about the blocking players:

"Why do they need to be there? They're clearly not receiving the ball, they know who the ball is going to so why put them there? You open the risk of the goal not being awarded."


However - they are onside and in a position where they can easily receive the ball.

This sounds a bit like the movie 'Minority report' - where people are arrested for crimes they haven't done yet, but are predicted to do so. With all the subjective rules in place, allowing for refs to manage the game, it's not right to add "you were going to do this so you get penalised".

Moving on - the rule is that attacking players can not touch the defenders, nor can they make a defender change their line if running. (ie: they need a clear straight path to the player attempting the field goal.)

But we're told the bunker can't rule on forward passes because camera's aren't always in line - so how can they rule on another instance where a straight line is there or not? (They can't - it's again left to the game managing refs to do a subjective call).

The trick for the kicker is to now boot the ball and just hop into the defending player to milk a penalty for 'defending player attacking the kicking legs of the...kicker).

 

[frank stokes]

"Why do they need to be there? They're clearly not receiving the ball, they know who the ball is going to so why put them there? You open the risk of the goal not being awarded."

So no team has ever made a play for a try in that position?

If too many players sprint out of the defensive line then of course those players become an option...

Additionally, those players could create a shift in the defensive line that opens an option to go right... we are in real sh*te if teams begin having to do "what is obvious"...

Fmd... this game...

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Time (well past time) for Annesley to be replaced.
Credibility can only be stretched so far.

 

[frank stokes]

Time (well past time) for Annesley to be replaced.
Credibility can only be stretched so far.

Feels like at this point he has just reverted to "it is on the players, nothing to see here" as a default...

The NRL and the refs have nfi what is and is not a penalty anymore... depends on what point of the match it is, what the scoreline is and what penalties have already been awarded... and muppet Annesley just gets up there and defends single calls without interrogating the fact that a hundred other similar calls (that would have impacted the result) were either ignored or missed..

too many stupid new rules and the refs are confused - i.e. the "obstructor"... has anyone seen the "obstructor" called since r3? I see (what I had come to know as) the "obstructor" occur every 2nd game (at least) but not a single penalty in 20-odd rounds...

...absolute fwits and Annesley is head fwit....

 

[Rackets]

The problem with Anusley and his minions is they know the rules, just don't know how to apply the rules.

 

[StuBoot]

Feels like at this point he has just reverted to "it is on the players, nothing to see here" as a default...

The NRL and the refs have nfi what is and is not a penalty anymore... depends on what point of the match it is, what the scoreline is and what penalties have already been awarded... and muppet Annesley just gets up there and defends single calls without interrogating the fact that a hundred other similar calls (that would have impacted the result) were either ignored or missed..

So, will be interesting to see if this rule is applied as rigorously when a team goes for a field goal when it's not the last few minutes or Golden Point.

And surely there is someone in the media going through all the field goals kicked during the season to see if this ruling should have been applied then.

 

[Dion Johnson]

Feels like at this point he has just reverted to "it is on the players, nothing to see here" as a default...

The NRL and the refs have nfi what is and is not a penalty anymore... depends on what point of the match it is, what the scoreline is and what penalties have already been awarded... and muppet Annesley just gets up there and defends single calls without interrogating the fact that a hundred other similar calls (that would have impacted the result) were either ignored or missed..

too many stupid new rules and the refs are confused - i.e. the "obstructor"... has anyone seen the "obstructor" called since r3? I see (what I had come to know as) the "obstructor" occur every 2nd game (at least) but not a single penalty in 20-odd rounds...

...absolute fwits and Annesley is head fwit....

Yeh the Disruptor has vanished, didn’t last long, the six again can go with it..

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

The problem with Anusley and his minions is they know the rules, just don't know how to apply the rules.

 

[The Who]

All the RL media have jumped on this topic. Must all read Silvertails.
PV is a smart guy. He'll know the refs are killing the sport by over-officiating. I'd suggest he's already told the refs to cut down on penalties and nit-picking. We'll see this round.
Of course, the real culprit in creating this mess is technology. By being foolish enough to believe technology can get decisions 100% correct we've gone down a slippery slope that everything is now micro-managed. Decisions are made by stop-frame and distort real time action. We've got The Bunker which can only rule on certain things. That's like a cop who can only arrest people for certain crimes. We have a bloke every Monday digging himself into a deeper hole trying to justify the indefensible and damaging the credibility of the sport. We got fans discussing rule technicalities instead of great play.
It's such a pity because this sport is potentially the finest football code in the world. We've got to pare officiating back to the basics or else we'll emulate all the worst aspects of RU and soccer.

 

[globaleagle]

I do find it kinda hilarious that in all this hoopla regarding the blocker penalties, that Newcastle missed their field goal anyway!

lol

(Assuming the pic is real).

Truth about Kalyn Ponga field goal comes to light to show Knights weren't dudded at all

The Cronulla Sharks were actually dudded by a missed call. Read more here.

au.sports.yahoo.com

‘Unbelievable’ twist in Ponga field goal drama as Bunker ‘con job’ comes under fire

‘Unbelievable’ twist in Ponga field goal drama as Bunker ‘con job’ comes under fire

www.foxsports.com.au