Another Ref Blunder...

[Eaglehauser]

dogs first try.

Touches their players hand then comes down on Parkers arm before he regathers for the try... now what was the video ref even looking for? not to mention our disallowed try before halftime for obstruction which never impeded their players from attempting the tackle

Dessies new army will keep on beating these ref bastards too!

Glad to have our Manly back!!

 

[QueefRichards]

Refs said it went backwards into Parker. Dont know how that's physically possible when you're jumping forward but thats another issue.

 

[Eaglehauser]

Refs said it went backwards into Parker. Dont know how that's physically possible when you're jumping forward but thats another issue.

Dogs player has forward momentum and the ball lands on his chest and Parkers arm which is about half metre forward of his first touch ...

 

[Luke_m]

I’m not even surprised anymore it’s simple manly need to beat the opposition team and the refs !!!! This manly team right now are playing like it’s manly against the world !!

 

[Bearfax]

Head of refs doesn't want to admit Refs are making terrible mistakes. Part of it is having two refs and therefore the quality is way down and inconsistent. Its a faulty system that the League just turns its back on, so like we have come to expect from Greenberg's gaggle of geese. Honk if you love a Greenberg goose..

 

[BrendonStarr]

The refs were under instructions to make Manly lose at all costs.

We beat more than one opponent that night.

Lets see them try and do it again vs Broncos.

Our final game last year at Suncorp we really got on a roll in the final 20 mins and were all over them and set to spoil their home semi final until the refs stopped us dead in our tracks.

 

[MadMarcus]

I think the bunker was listening to the Fox commentary team, who said it should be a try whether it was a knock on or not because the jump was so good.

 

[HoldenV8]

Just for a laugh, I read the game day thread on The Kennel last night (all 55 pages.....).

The overwhelming themes were:

1 - Perenara can't ref and and the refs were obviously favouring Manly. Both of Garrick's tries apparently came from passes that went about a metre forward, but Smith's first try shown in the OP here was 100% legal and a "great play"

2 - Lachlan Lewis isn't a first grade half because he does so much defence (have they ever watched DCE???).

3 - Holland and especially Okunbor on their left can't defend.

4 - Dean Pay doesn't know what he's doing, apparently.

 

[globaleagle]

Just for a laugh, I read the game day thread on The Kennel last night (all 55 pages.....).

The overwhelming themes were:

1 - Perenara can't ref and and the refs were obviously favouring Manly. Both of Garrick's tries apparently came from passes that went about a metre forward, but Smith's first try shown in the OP here was 100% legal and a "great play"

2 - Lachlan Lewis isn't a first grade half because he does so much defence (have they ever watched DCE???).

3 - Holland and especially Okunbor on their left can't defend.

4 - Dean Pay doesn't know what he's doing, apparently.

lol. The thing I liked about Garricks tries was that you could see LG pass before the line....and the ball still be caught behind the line and not 6 metres forward via the ole 'out of the hands backwards but momentum' call.

To the OP, the disallowed try was ruled that way because Manly caught the ball on the inside shoulder of a player running through the defensive line. While it did have no bearing and players from pre-1990's back are rolling their eyes, it's a rule and as long as it's applied consistently.... but we know consistency is over-rated (intoddgrity).

S'funny, I think our player was trying to pass the ball out wide but whomever it was decided to go for the ball, and caught it on the inside shoulder.

*waffle*

edit: Yep, I just went and checked our two tries again and there's nothing wrong with those passes.

 

[HoldenV8]

lol. The thing I liked about Garricks tries was that you could see LG pass before the line....and the ball still be caught behind the line and not 6 metres forward via the ole 'out of the hands backwards but momentum' call.

To the OP, the disallowed try was ruled that way because Manly caught the ball on the inside shoulder of a player running through the defensive line. While it did have no bearing and players from pre-1990's back are rolling their eyes, it's a rule and as long as it's applied consistently.... but we know consistency is over-rated (intoddgrity).

S'funny, I think our player was trying to pass the ball out wide but whomever it was decided to go for the ball, and caught it on the inside shoulder.

*waffle*

edit: Yep, I just went and checked our two tries again and there's nothing wrong with those passes.

When it comes to the obstruction rule, I know its not going to happen but what I would like to see is some common sense brought into the decisions made by the bunker. There have been countless tries disallowed because by the letter of the law, there was an obstruction. But how many times do we see the "impacted player" playing for a penalty rather than actually doing some defensive work? (and TBH it $hits me to tears when just about every time a try is scored, en mass the defending team immediately turn to the referee and plead for obstruction from the bunker to get them out of gaol). And how many times would it even be obvious to Stevie Wonder that the player supposedly being obstructed would not have any chance whatsoever to stop or help stop a try from being scored?

But then, this is the NRL where the game's illustrious leader believes that consistency is overrated and common sense seems to have little bearing on decisions that are made.

 

[The Wheel]

Great pick up with the pics!!

 

[Cioran]

A few years ago we had a try taken off us because a Manly player was loitering in the ruck. Even though the player in question was 20 metres away on the other side of the goal posts. The obstruction rule on the weekend showed a similar level of common sense. Mind you if it had happened to the Bulldogs I’d have laughed. The short inside ball from Marty that was ruled forward was equally galling. The only reason Marty ended up behind where the ball was caught was that he was being driven back in the tackle.

Other teams and other games are copping the brunt of bad calls as well. In the Knights/Eels match, at one point, two different Knights players went out of their way to run two different Eels players off a rolling ball and the referee penalised an Eels player for trying to get over the top of the Knights player who was impeding him. Consistency is very overrated apparently.

 

[Cliffymagic]

Just for a laugh, I read the game day thread on The Kennel last night (all 55 pages.....).

The overwhelming themes were:

1 - Perenara can't ref and and the refs were obviously favouring Manly. Both of Garrick's tries apparently came from passes that went about a metre forward, but Smith's first try shown in the OP here was 100% legal and a "great play"

2 - Lachlan Lewis isn't a first grade half because he does so much defence (have they ever watched DCE???).

3 - Holland and especially Okunbor on their left can't defend.

4 - Dean Pay doesn't know what he's doing, apparently.

Yeah. If people think we get harsh on our players during gameday thread .you should check out the kennel. Some real ferals there. Must be tough being a dogs surrporter lol.

 

[Cliffymagic]

I hate the way the video ref seems to rule tries againts us very quickly with 1 or so views. Yet when we go up. They csi surgically examine every possible thing in super duper slow mo 20 times.

 

[Fluffy]

I thought parker go a slight touch but the first try to Garrick the pass travelled forward over a metre and I think momentum wasn't that much and given all the others it could have been called.

Both 50/50's and to win one/lose one is better than usual

 

[Eaglehauser]

lol. The thing I liked about Garricks tries was that you could see LG pass before the line....and the ball still be caught behind the line and not 6 metres forward via the ole 'out of the hands backwards but momentum' call.

To the OP, the disallowed try was ruled that way because Manly caught the ball on the inside shoulder of a player running through the defensive line. While it did have no bearing and players from pre-1990's back are rolling their eyes, it's a rule and as long as it's applied consistently.... but we know consistency is over-rated (intoddgrity).

S'funny, I think our player was trying to pass the ball out wide but whomever it was decided to go for the ball, and caught it on the inside shoulder.

*waffle*

edit: Yep, I just went and checked our two tries again and there's nothing wrong with those passes.

Understand the obstruction on the inside shoulder is black and white these days - it was more tounge in. cheek but it’s still funny that no players were impeded as the runner went through the line and dogs players still had a good crack at our guy. If it were against us i think 20 looks by the video ref later theyd find a way to give it a try

 

[maxta]

The weird part is with these decisions of catching the ball runner....a block runner not going right through the defensive line....has been based on common sense till the Elliott no try??
You hear the bunker often refer to “This has no impact on the defender so playing on at this stage”
Yes by the book, the half took the outside lane and was 30cm inside shoulder....but there was zero impact on the defensive line and has been called by the bunker “The defenders have made a defensive decision”...but on this occasion its not common sense and back to 2018 for the first time after 8 rounds.
Personally happy either way, but sick of Manly always on the wrong end of these inconsistent calls....make it by the book or better still - Common sense....but not different depending on the team playing.

 

[bob dylan]

Just for a laugh, I read the game day thread on The Kennel last night (all 55 pages.....).

The overwhelming themes were:

1 - Perenara can't ref and and the refs were obviously favouring Manly. Both of Garrick's tries apparently came from passes that went about a metre forward, but Smith's first try shown in the OP here was 100% legal and a "great play"

2 - Lachlan Lewis isn't a first grade half because he does so much defence (have they ever watched DCE???).

3 - Holland and especially Okunbor on their left can't defend.

4 - Dean Pay doesn't know what he's doing, apparently.

The thing I liked most is how unlucky they were but not a single member mentioned it was probably (on paper) the worst team Manly has put on a field in 50 years.

They make a lot of good points that you mentioned above, I have just edited them slightly, see below.

1 - Perenara can't ref.

2 - Lachlan Lewis isn't a first grade half.

3 - Holland and especially Okunbor on their left can't defend.

4 - Dean Pay doesn't know what he's doing. If he did he would never accepted the job.

 

[StuBoot]

The weird part is with these decisions of catching the ball runner....a block runner not going right through the defensive line....has been based on common sense till the Elliott no try??
You hear the bunker often refer to “This has no impact on the defender so playing on at this stage”
Yes by the book, the half took the outside lane and was 30cm inside shoulder....but there was zero impact on the defensive line and has been called by the bunker “The defenders have made a defensive decision”...but on this occasion its not common sense and back to 2018 for the first time after 8 rounds.
Personally happy either way, but sick of Manly always on the wrong end of these inconsistent calls....make it by the book or better still - Common sense....but not different depending on the team playing.

I think the main player blowing up about it was Cogger ( ?) and never had eyes on the decoy nor made a play for him so zero impeding in my book.

 

[Chip and Chase]

Garricks first try was off a forward pass. Rather ironic given how tight they were on all the short balls around the ruck, pulling up 3 or 4 of those for being a cm or two forward, yet they let the 1-2m one go.

The Elliot no try was just a little bit of bad timing - Croker needed to get that extra couple of steps in to be on outside shoulder, he didn't so it got pulled back even though there was no actual obstruction/contact.