Please explain

[globaleagle]

Annesley 'consistently' claims one can't use 'cherry-picked' stats as they can prove anything. therefore any stats showing refs in a bad light should be dismissed as taken out of context.

He then, in the blink of an eye, uses stats to show how good his refs are going.

It is mind-boggling frustrating.

 

[Supreme Leader]

Yeah I agree with everything you've said however, Jake is definitely our player who takes a liberal approach and is "in charge" of such things which leads to more penalties on suspicion due to his role. We have well developed ruck control tactics with the use of wrestling and other such things, it's noticeable when we get a roll on even as a one eyed eagle-man.

We definitely aren't the worst offenders by a significant margin as some of not just the infringements against us but when we receive them. I'd be willing to wager they're probably professional foul, tackle 1 after a break type penalties. I can't remember the last time we had a piggy back whether we capitalised on it or not, we just don't get them.

Mostly agree and I think we are on the same page. But the concept a player can be picked and penalised on suspicion that he might lay too long in the tackle is a shocker. Similarly the NSW Police should park out the front of my home and just hand me a speeding ticket, or fine me for having a mobile in my hand getting into a car because I must be going to be speeding whilst talking the phone.

Before anyone responds, they would be probably be correct! but until I do the offence.... on suspicion sucks.

 

[Ranga]

And Jake, Jake, Jake is responsible for half of them

Jake is averaging less than 1 ruck infringement a game this year. Maybe a lot of us have a subconscious bias as well!

 

[47MVEagle]

Oh so "cherry-picked stats" don't tell the whole story, huh?

Okay, what mitigating circumstances or context could possibly be used to excuse Tupou's high shot on the weekend?

What events leading up to it could possibly be taken into account when deciding it wasn't deserving of a sinbinning?

Instead of waffling pollie-speak, explain that one Annesley!

 

[StuBoot]

How is it in our game a knock on is inconclusive to overturn but the bunker can conclusively tonight rule Ken Maumalo didn’t have both feet behind the kicker who was 30m across field?

Yes, replying to my own post but....
again, how can a knock on (Mansour getting a finger to it near the end) that everyone else sees be deemed inconclusive by the bunker?
We saw it in real time the first time, so did the commentators but the one person who has myriad of replays can't.

Btw has anyone seen a replay of the Mansour "knockdown" in the first half where he ran deep into our half?
Um, what happened there?

 

[HoldenV8]

Okay, what mitigating circumstances or context could possibly be used to excuse Tupou's high shot on the weekend?

The sad reality is also that because of the stuff up last week in not binning or sending Tupou off, the first "incident" this round (there really wasn't one at Suncorp or Cbus) was always going to have a massive overreaction from the refs. And thus tonight Karl Lawton got sent.

 

[HK_Eagle]

Yes, replying to my own post but....
again, how can a knock on (Mansour getting a finger to it near the end) that everyone else sees be deemed inconclusive by the bunker?
We saw it in real time the first time, so did the commentators but the one person who has myriad of replays can't.

Btw has anyone seen a replay of the Mansour "knockdown" in the first half where he ran deep into our half?
Um, what happened there?

They showed one replay a good 5 or 10 minutes later from memory and I couldn't see it clearly. Did he falcon it by any chance? It was the most bizarre thing I've ever seen in terms of the complete lack of scrutiny by officials and commentators.

And yes, how the bunker couldn't see the Mansur touch was astounding.