Brissie Kid
Bencher
That was a disgraceful decision. By that logic a kick return by a winger or fullback can never be legal.
Annesley's weakly "why this happened" report
- Thread starter globaleagle
- Start date
-
We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.
That was a disgraceful decision. By that logic a kick return by a winger or fullback can never be legal.
No discussion, so 'obv a non issue' and we should all stfu.
Annesley conceded the NRL Bunker erred in confirming a try from a kick to Newcastle back-rower Lachlan Fitzgibbon when Bradman Best had obstructed Broncos flyer Jamayne Isaako.
He also said Storm star Josh Addo-Carr should not have been allowed to play on after stripping the ball from Sea Eagles fullback Tom Trbojevic because the tackle had been completed.
But he backed referee Gerard Sutton's call to sin-bin Roosters prop Jared Waerea-Hargreaves for a professional foul after slowing down the play-the-ball against the Panthers.
Graham Annesley said on Monday that both he and the match review committee were unable to confirm what Chambers had said.
"The match review committee did monitor the referee's audio for any comments that may or may not have been made or any comments … my understanding is they could not determine anything that was said," Annesley said.
"I also looked at and listened to footage from that game using the referee's audio and I couldn't hear anything either.
(I wonder if they could ask the rest of the world, who seem to know what was said).
He also said Storm star Josh Addo-Carr should not have been allowed to play on after stripping the ball from Sea Eagles fullback Tom Trbojevic because the tackle had been completed.
But he backed referee Gerard Sutton's call to sin-bin Roosters prop Jared Waerea-Hargreaves for a professional foul after slowing down the play-the-ball against the Panthers.
Graham Annesley said on Monday that both he and the match review committee were unable to confirm what Chambers had said.
"The match review committee did monitor the referee's audio for any comments that may or may not have been made or any comments … my understanding is they could not determine anything that was said," Annesley said.
"I also looked at and listened to footage from that game using the referee's audio and I couldn't hear anything either.
(I wonder if they could ask the rest of the world, who seem to know what was said).
cc eagle
Bencher
Bla,Bla,Bla same old crap, bunker erred, ref made wrong call, one of these is going to cost a team a GF win, can't believe how the bunker gets so many decisions wrong.
Again admitting the refs stuffed up, but just carry on, nothing to see here.
What is the use of these weekly dirges, nothing is ever followed up, they never action anything from them. Complete waste of time/effort, all it proves is that annesley is getting paid, most probably a nice tidy sum, for absolutely doing nothing of value
What is the use of these weekly dirges, nothing is ever followed up, they never action anything from them. Complete waste of time/effort, all it proves is that annesley is getting paid, most probably a nice tidy sum, for absolutely doing nothing of value
And why no mention of Hughes knees to Garricks jaw , post non try ?? Is it because Garrick didn't stay down and for some strange reason the media was very quite on it so its just easier to ignore ? Or am I missing something
It's because the MRC said 'play on' too and they don't comment on MRC decision.
ok well I thought any contact to the head is a penalty like we have seen blown since magic round with few exceptions for accidental contact ,so why does that escape those rules ? I would bet anything that if that was DCE sliding into JAC that DCE would have been now charged with the maximum force of the MRC and anyone else that wanted to have a go .
Tell me if I am wrong ? I just dont get it one rule for the grubby storm and another for Manly ?
Mate, I can't explain it. I couldn't believe it wasn't a sin bin but then again, a few weeks ago Api dropped his knees into an opposition player on a kick chase and nothing was done then either. I probably would have sent Api for what he did - dropping the knees is so dangerous and it is nearly always avoidable.
But the 'crack down' 'back down' is such a farce. Annesley gets up and talks about the stats around foul play and how it has decreased (before this last weekend), and so therefore the crackdown worked to change behaviour. That is so laughable - the NRL is marking its own homework for crying out loud!
40 years an eagle
Bencher
It is painfully obvious they are an attempt to show the NRL is being accountable. Smoke and mirrors/ obfuscation.
johnperi01
Reserve Grader
Just watching a replay of the match and it’s beyond belief how Hughes wasn’t penalised and sin binned. He wasn’t even in the frame when Reuben already over the sideline, and he just slid in with the knees and got him in the head. That was 15 to go in the first half, so how different is the complexion if that is judged correctly.
I see Kent on nrl360 did a segment ripping into the mrc.
In short, MRC of ex players don't know the rules as well as refs do. Crichton should not have been given 3 weeks for a crusher because Martin backs into the tackle.
Later, Kikau does one worse, including a second effort, and nothing.
He may have a point.
Ron E. Gibbs
First Grader
The whole "turn around and back into the tackle" thing reminds me of Greg Inglis jumping up as he was tackled, resulting in a penalty for a lifting tackle or dangerous throw. Josh Reynolds did it against us, too, to win a penalty (and the game) at Brookvale. You figure the refs and MRC will figure it out sooner or later, but then you remember, "Oh, yeah - this is rugby league and stupidity is king."
NRL head of football Graham Annesley has launched a stunning takedown of clubs and coaches criticising the game's match officials.
While Annesley didn't single out any coach or comments made in particular, he said the NRL has seen enough criticism toward match officials and the blame of losses being put on them.
"Some of the levels of criticism that's been coming about match officials after the game, I think is over the top," he told reporters today.
"I think it's unjustified. Although there are decisions that clubs don't like and that they may think should have gone the other way, they're not necessarily wrong decisions.
"There are decisions that the referee or the bunker has to apply judgement and they have to make a decision. If you ask the fans and supporters of the opposition team, they would be saying it was 100 per cent right.
"We are getting these marginal decisions, and there's a lot of them in our game, and yet after games, we're hearing criticism about one or two officiating decisions that might be arguable. And when they get them wrong, we will say they're wrong.
"It's overwhelming the post-match commentary about what's happening in games.
And wah wah wa wah wah waaaah wah wah wah wah!
"We're not hearing anything about the 20 handling errors on average per game, we're not hearing anything about the 60 missed tackles on average per game. We're not hearing anything about the 30 ineffective tackles on average per game, or the 10 line-breaks on average per game that teams concede.
"Each one of those incidents, I would say to you has a far greater impact on the outcome of the game than one or two refereeing decisions that might be arguable."
(that's because the players are making those you stupid f-stick. Players can be dropped but refs serve up the same garbage every week without punishment. If you can't determine the difference in scope of a player v ref mistake then step down toadbuggerer.)
Annesley also defended the NRL's decision not to penalise or sanction Cleary for the controversial tackle on Bird. - (this'll be good)
"He turns away from him and hits him with his side," Annesley said of Cleary's incident. (so with his shoulder then)
"Yes there is contact with the shoulder (very good graham), but we have to remember what a shoulder charge is. That is someone charging at an opposition player with their shoulder. - Oh you mean like Josh's... no wait that was just a ref 'mistake to help out the eels.
"This is a player who at the last moment decides he's not going to go through with the tackle in the traditional sense and turn his body sideways. This is not something that is unusual over the course of the game." - omfg ah hahahahaha no one is buying that.
While Annesley didn't single out any coach or comments made in particular, he said the NRL has seen enough criticism toward match officials and the blame of losses being put on them.
"Some of the levels of criticism that's been coming about match officials after the game, I think is over the top," he told reporters today.
"I think it's unjustified. Although there are decisions that clubs don't like and that they may think should have gone the other way, they're not necessarily wrong decisions.
"There are decisions that the referee or the bunker has to apply judgement and they have to make a decision. If you ask the fans and supporters of the opposition team, they would be saying it was 100 per cent right.
"We are getting these marginal decisions, and there's a lot of them in our game, and yet after games, we're hearing criticism about one or two officiating decisions that might be arguable. And when they get them wrong, we will say they're wrong.
"It's overwhelming the post-match commentary about what's happening in games.
And wah wah wa wah wah waaaah wah wah wah wah!
"We're not hearing anything about the 20 handling errors on average per game, we're not hearing anything about the 60 missed tackles on average per game. We're not hearing anything about the 30 ineffective tackles on average per game, or the 10 line-breaks on average per game that teams concede.
"Each one of those incidents, I would say to you has a far greater impact on the outcome of the game than one or two refereeing decisions that might be arguable."
(that's because the players are making those you stupid f-stick. Players can be dropped but refs serve up the same garbage every week without punishment. If you can't determine the difference in scope of a player v ref mistake then step down toadbuggerer.)
Annesley also defended the NRL's decision not to penalise or sanction Cleary for the controversial tackle on Bird. - (this'll be good)
"He turns away from him and hits him with his side," Annesley said of Cleary's incident. (so with his shoulder then)
"Yes there is contact with the shoulder (very good graham), but we have to remember what a shoulder charge is. That is someone charging at an opposition player with their shoulder. - Oh you mean like Josh's... no wait that was just a ref 'mistake to help out the eels.
"This is a player who at the last moment decides he's not going to go through with the tackle in the traditional sense and turn his body sideways. This is not something that is unusual over the course of the game." - omfg ah hahahahaha no one is buying that.
cc eagle
Bencher
Right, so how fast is charging, ? Lawyers will love that at the judiciary
StuBoot
Bencher
To be fair ( I can't believe I wrote that!) he showed about half a dozen similar incidents that didn't get charged one of which was Garrick v Warriors - all determined to be bracing not exerting force.
Funny thing is, each week his mantra is "you can't compare incidents as they are all different" yet here he is comparing incidents to justify themselves!
Also he reviewed the match deciding high tackle in the Roosters/Broncos game.
Although the contact was minimal the bunker was correct in deeming it a penalty because , paraphrasing "while reviewing the replay they can't just ignore contact to the head regardless if the contact was minimal and unintended, it doesn't have to be a sin bin or on report".
Would love for someone to call them out "Okay, so why was the minimal high contact to Garrick whilst scoring a try not acted upon?"
Makes one wonder when they review the try, WTF were they looking at?
So if Garrick drops it, is it a penalty try?
But he scored so no harm, no foul.
Completely avoiding the biggest problem - consistency - most refs very obviously favour one side, all anyone wants is for both sides to be reffed the same way in each game. I can cop different refs have slightly different ways of reffing a game, but a ref reffing 2 teams playing each other in totally different ways is a problem annesley needs to fix instead of blaming coaches
| Team | P | W | L | PD | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
6 | 5 | 1 | 59 | 12 |
|
6 | 5 | 1 | 20 | 12 |
|
6 | 4 | 2 | 53 | 10 |
|
6 | 4 | 2 | 30 | 10 |
|
7 | 4 | 2 | 25 | 9 |
|
7 | 4 | 3 | 40 | 8 |
|
7 | 4 | 3 | 24 | 8 |
|
7 | 4 | 3 | -8 | 8 |
|
7 | 4 | 3 | -18 | 8 |
|
7 | 3 | 3 | 20 | 7 |
|
7 | 3 | 4 | 31 | 6 |
|
7 | 3 | 4 | 17 | 6 |
|
6 | 2 | 4 | -31 | 6 |
|
7 | 3 | 4 | -41 | 6 |
|
7 | 2 | 5 | -29 | 4 |
|
6 | 1 | 5 | -102 | 4 |
|
6 | 0 | 6 | -90 | 2 |
