Ref and Bunker Decisions

[Iamback]

This is probably the dumbest argument for a knock on to have been called. Dropping a kick gets called knock back all the time. Dropped passes on the other hand usually get called knock ons unless they are very obviously backwards.
I don't think you'll find a Manly fan that would have been particularly upset if it was called a knock on but you're just making shit up if you think refs never call dropped balls knock backs.
The ball went backwards and 12 of the panthers players stopped and waited for a whistle, that alone means they got what they deserved.

As a poster earlier said.


If the ref calls it a knock on, Do you think Manly challenges it?

 

[firechild]

As a poster earlier said.


If the ref calls it a knock on, Do you think Manly challenges it?

No. I already conceded that nobody would have complained if it got called back but my comment was in relation to what you said about dropped kicks and also, there are plenty of decisions made by refs that are close enough that they're pretty widely accepted, even by players and coaches but it doesn't necessarily make them right just because everyone is willing to accept them.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Todd Smith dropped for making correct decisions and for not following the mandate of do everything possible to help PENRITH win.

 

[ACTPanthers]

Todd Smith dropped for making correct decisions and for not following the mandate of do everything possible to help PENRITH win.

I'll take things that didn't happen for $100 thanks

 

[Fangs]

How good are the Panthers?

Not even the referees can stop them in 2024. This train just keeps a rollin'.

 

[Vee]

Oh dear, I've complained for years that refs have given up and any dropped ball was a knock-on regardless of the ball clearly going backwards.

Last week's Manly try was a correct decision at odds with the last decade at least (regardless of those saying it's been that way since the game began).

And tonight we get three decisions, the first of which was clearly back and allowed to play on so I think, "Great, we're actually looking we're enforcing the rules again" and then two more at odds with that.

I see what's happening, the refs thought, "Cool, we're playing the rulebook again" but old habits are hard to break.

 

[Chins get the wins]

Oh dear, I've complained for years that refs have given up and any dropped ball was a knock-on regardless of the ball clearly going backwards.

Last week's Manly try was a correct decision at odds with the last decade at least (regardless of those saying it's been that way since the game began).

And tonight we get three decisions, the first of which was clearly back and allowed to play on so I think, "Great, we're actually looking we're enforcing the rules again" and then two more at odds with that.

I see what's happening, the refs thought, "Cool, we're playing the rulebook again" but old habits are hard to break.

Lol you dumbmerkin

 

[skeepe]

I thought the interpretation was changed this year because I don't remember seeing 6agains overturned to penalties in previous years? Can you remember games in 2023 where this happened?

I guess you're technically right. If it's an offside 6again and the attacking team drops it it will change to a penalty. If it's a ruck related penalty it won't, because it's considered a new play once the ball is put on the ground and played.

Would you have another way to explain it?

Nope, you’ve got it pretty much spot on there.

 

[Frailty]

Oh dear, I've complained for years that refs have given up and any dropped ball was a knock-on regardless of the ball clearly going backwards.

Last week's Manly try was a correct decision at odds with the last decade at least (regardless of those saying it's been that way since the game began).

And tonight we get three decisions, the first of which was clearly back and allowed to play on so I think, "Great, we're actually looking we're enforcing the rules again" and then two more at odds with that.

I see what's happening, the refs thought, "Cool, we're playing the rulebook again" but old habits are hard to break.

One thing I want to point out, because I saw it a lot on social media last night. The instance where Chrichton (I think?) knocked the ball forward and then batted it back was correctly called a knock-on - though it's a very technical rule that I don't think has been correctly called for a long time.

Here is the rule for a knock-on being called (Section 10, 2.):

If, after knocking-on accidentally, the player knocking-on regains or kicks the ball before it touches the ground, a goal post, cross bar or an opponent, then play shall be allowed to proceed. Otherwise play shall stop and a scrum shall be formed except after the fifth play-the-ball.

Chricton batting the ball isn't regaining the ball.

Sutton is terrible, don't get me wrong, but he got that call 100% right.

 

[Valheru]

One thing I want to point out, because I saw it a lot on social media last night. The instance where Chrichton (I think?) knocked the ball forward and then batted it back was correctly called a knock-on - though it's a very technical rule that I don't think has been correctly called for a long time.

Here is the rule for a knock-on being called (Section 10, 2.):

If, after knocking-on accidentally, the player knocking-on regains or kicks the ball before it touches the ground, a goal post, cross bar or an opponent, then play shall be allowed to proceed. Otherwise play shall stop and a scrum shall be formed except after the fifth play-the-ball.

Chricton batting the ball isn't regaining the ball.

Sutton is terrible, don't get me wrong, but he got that call 100% right.

Batting the ball back after losing control forward has been called play on for years. Had we a challenge available we would have won it on that occasion.

 

[Frailty]

Batting the ball back after losing control forward has been called play on for years. Had we a challenge available we would have won it on that occasion.

Must have missed where I wrote "I don't think it has been correctly called for a long time".

One of those situations where a referee penalises a player for not using his foot in the play the ball. It's technically right, but it hasn't been applied for years.

 

[Valheru]

Must have missed where I wrote "I don't think it has been correctly called for a long time".

One of those situations where a referee penalises a player for not using his foot in the play the ball. It's technically right, but it hasn't been applied for years.

I didn't miss it, I'm agreeing with you

 

[Saxon]

Well take this for what you will, but on Triple M yesterday they had Ryan Girdler, Wade Graham and Michael Chammas and they were all unanimous that as soon as Munster touches the ball in possession of a prone player, it constitutes a completed tackle. Wade Graham was the one I took note of as he was RLPA director until he retired and as far as i know, rule changes have to go through the RLPA, so I would think he is a reasonable authority on current rules, at least up until last year and possibly if any 2024 rules came through the RLPA before he retired.

And if the ref had called "Surrender" it would have been. But he didn't.
Annesley showed the rule which says the ref shall immediately call surrender and the tackle will be complete. He played the audio about 5 times and there was no call of surrender. Klown might have thought it but didn't say it. It's a merkin act to penalise someone for not being psychic.

 

[Vee]

And suddenly, when the Dolphins challenge a knock-on call, the bunker finds that the ball though going back out of the hands, continues towards the opposition tryline and is therefore a knock-on.

Which is fine, as was the Manly try last week. Except that it goes against every dropped ball for the last 20 years.

 

[gerg]

Connor Tracey challenged a knock on call. Bunker looks at it once and backs up the referees knock on call. Looked pretty clear to me that Connor was trying to pass to his winger. Shirley?

 

[T-Boon]

One of those situations where a referee penalises a player for not using his foot in the play the ball. It's technically right, but it hasn't been applied for years.

With that the last time the tried to police it the media blamed the refs for over penalising.
I say what they should do is just make it reviewable (so a captain could police it rather than the ref) and also police it on tries.

 

[Saxon]

With that the last time the tried to police it the media blamed the refs for over penalising.
I say what they should do is just make it reviewable (so a captain could police it rather than the ref) and also police it on tries.

There's your problem. Phool Gould and co trying to form the game to what they want it to be.

 

[Vee]

Cowboys defender runs through the leg of the kicker.

Really?

 

[Vee]

Are they kidding? I'm no fan of Milne but really?

 

[T-Boon]

What do people think about that horrid charge down that put Ilias out. To me that’s on the coaches.