What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The NRL's Referee Review is in..

King Ben

Juniors
Messages
1,174
LINK: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...s/news-story/b1f73d53a7ada8068a8fb2d244d38078
THE NRL’s official review into the refereeing in Sunday’s controversial Cowboys victory over the Cronulla Sharks has found the match officials got their major decisions right — but erred on three occasions by failing to give penalties to the Sharks.

The report, leaked to The Daily Telegraph, backs up the decision to send Sharks five-eighth James Maloney to the sin bin and the crucial call that skipper Paul Gallen lost possession in the 79th minute.

It also surprisingly found Andrew Fifita has knocked the ball on in the 74th minute, despite the ball going backwards through his legs.

“Fifita touches the ball with his both hands and attempts to pick it up and regather,” the report said. “The ball at this point is off the ground. The ball is then dropped back to the ground.

“This constitutes a knock on. Following that the ball is then knocked backward and comes off his left foot before Gallen regathers.”

The reports also found the Cronulla Sharks on three occasions were not given penalties when they should have been.

“It should be noted that the Sharks should have received penalties for the contact on (Luke) Lewis at the (0.57min & 25.24min) and 52.58min.

“Additionally the Sharks should have been penalised for the incidents at 65.50min.”

The Sharks were flogged 11-5 in the penalties. The review showed the count should have been 12-8.

83844bf8afafacd05dbfafed2ef74181

ff4f2105360bc8acee7da824f18e1be5

4cf8194d6b73e9002c3633831a8f2e7e
 
Messages
2,830
thanks for posting King Ben, at least the noises that we have been making collectively have elicited some constructive responses, in contrast to the "Go away and grow up" rhetorical garbage from the so called administrators of the sport.
 

Weaponhead

Coach
Messages
10,169
They are kidding in defending the Maloney sin bin. Sin bin has only been used when a player is obstructed in a clear try scoring opportunity. Holmes had the ball covered easily. No one prevented from contesting. Penalty sufficient.

Anyway, none of it matters now. Greenberg can get f**ked. Slimy, political weasel that he is.
 

Omnishark2

Juniors
Messages
566
What a crock eg 75.40 minutes
Supposed Prior strip on Fensom (not Coote - they can't even get the player right).
No way in the world was that a strip - he dropped it cold.
Not even a 50/50 call.

And what a surprise - the whitewash says was OK.
Just one of many.
 

Card Shark

Immortal
Messages
32,237
The Gal drop is a penalty earlier in the game when a penalty doesn't decide the game or if it's not within kicking distance.

Sometimes they penalise when 1 hand is on the ball. He had 2, despite them suggesting 1. The vision from the other side showed this.

In regards to Fifita drop, he dropped it, semi- regathered enough to knock it back between his legs. They obviously didn't look at the footage from behind which clearly showed him managing to keep it off the turf initially.

I'm not blaming the refs, we lost it, but you'll never win with such distinct denial of facts.

With the prior penalty, the ball ended up in a precarious position for control, through no fault of ours, then it is lost. Surely that's not 50/50 & common sense prevails....no, we are penalised close to the posts that influenced the game's result...what they couldn't do up the other end for us.
 

Card Shark

Immortal
Messages
32,237
The other thing I can't agree on is the JT try.

To say the refs were in good position to see it is crap.

He was shielded & had to get to a better position to see, which I doubt he could but maybe he did?

If he did see the ball on / over the line, why not say "I've seen the ball on the line & video replays will probably be inconclusive with all the bodies there. Check that he didn't drop it getting it down & if not, i have a try".

Make a f**king decision. If you see the ball put down in those circumstances, award the try!
 
Messages
14,495
Did they really say SHOULD OF?

Frank, What's your take on the Club's stance? I've never seen the Club so fired up to lock horns with the administration. Is this the NEW Sharks mantra no one will walk all over us anymore or more personal against Green Turd?
Can I say we are acting more Manlyish???
 
Messages
4,429
The other thing I can't agree on is the JT try.

To say the refs were in good position to see it is crap.

He was shielded & had to get to a better position to see, which I doubt he could but maybe he did?

If he did see the ball on / over the line, why not say "I've seen the ball on the line & video replays will probably be inconclusive with all the bodies there. Check that he didn't drop it getting it down & if not, i have a try".

Make a f**king decision. If you see the ball put down in those circumstances, award the try!

by the time he was in a position to see the ball it was on the way back up from the lowest point which was on Brailey's hand

out and out no try

MASSIVE flaw in the process

this happened to us in the titans game at skilled park in that massive down pour

we had numerious decisions sent up as no try by the referee. All came back down as insufficient evidence. the referee had to send his opinion up and he had no f**king clue.

absolutely geniused process
 
Messages
1,850
Frank, What's your take on the Club's stance? I've never seen the Club so fired up to lock horns with the administration. Is this the NEW Sharks mantra no one will walk all over us anymore or more personal against Green Turd?
Can I say we are acting more Manlyish???

I spoke to Flano yesterday. He was one pissed off dude. He felt he had to stand up for the supporters of the club. I like it!
 

Surely

Post Whore
Messages
96,175
The other thing I can't agree on is the JT try.

To say the refs were in good position to see it is crap.

He was shielded & had to get to a better position to see, which I doubt he could but maybe he did?

If he did see the ball on / over the line, why not say "I've seen the ball on the line & video replays will probably be inconclusive with all the bodies there. Check that he didn't drop it getting it down & if not, i have a try".

Make a f**king decision. If you see the ball put down in those circumstances, award the try!


I don't have an issue with that try, benefit of the doubt should go to the attacking team always, it allows for some consistency

Unfortunately they don't always apply that benefit of the doubt which is what leads them to being criticised, eg: walkers offside ruling.
 

Latest posts

Top