That Penalty

[64 Dragon]

Just finished watching Dogs v Manly and Titans v Broncos. Talk about crap refereeing. Most of Dogs passes from dummy half were forward, and inthe other game forward passes were thrown all night. What is it with refs? Don't they know what a forward pass is. Most of the decisions went in favour of the home team. Also it seems that this year the Broncos are a protected species.

 

[Minh]

They appear to get it wrong more nowadays because of the technology. If you didn't see a replay from 5 different angles you wouldn't know they had made a mistake.

What I used to love about union years ago was when the ref had to make a call on held up or try. He would make a decision and looked certain of it. That game got ruined when they brought technology in. The technology has improved league, but ruined union.

I suppose your right when you got so many different angles it can appear to be a different result on one angle to the other, the thing is some of the blatantly bad calls or a lack of consistency where one try could be awarded one week and a near identical one being disallowed on another occasion.

 

[Efresh]

Yeah Minh I know what you mean and it sucks to lose a game due to a ref error. I just dont think it is any better or worse than any other season.

 

[jenninga]

i think league is one of the easier games to referee, I did it myself in a high school game when the ref failed to turn up to the junior year 8 high school game lol. With all the technology linesmen, two refs, video ref, how do they still get it so wrong so often, go figure.;-)

The Linesman have been useless for years and only get involved for stupid things like a bitchslap or something stupid which will bring the play back 70 m for a soft penalty ,or a forward pass which is not forward.
The refs have a difficult job and the incompetent linesman don't help .

 

[jenninga]

Just finished watching Dogs v Manly and Titans v Broncos. Talk about crap refereeing. Most of Dogs passes from dummy half were forward, and inthe other game forward passes were thrown all night. What is it with refs? Don't they know what a forward pass is. Most of the decisions went in favour of the home team. Also it seems that this year the Broncos are a protected species.

Blame the idiot linesman,they are in line with the play or they should be.

 

[God-King Dean]

In the 2 games last night I heard several times " He/they were f**king [insert verb]" several times. No penalty.

 

[myanonymoususername]

Certain publications are pushing the perception that the player was at fault. Luckliy for the ref, his incompetance has been overshadowed because the team showed real spirit to run them down after that.

FTR, there were bad calls going both ways. Mostly minor stuff. But the late penalty for dissent was just plain stupid from the ref. In the context of the game, five minutes to go, right in front of the posts to give one side an eight point lead? Stupid as stupid is. And all because a senior player said the 'F word' when appealing for 'held'.

"f**ken held!" That's it. There was no abuse towards the ref, nothing personal, no one was touched or pushed... just an expletive yelled in the heat of the moment.

No first grade referee should be so precious to see that as dissent. It happens every weekend. The penalty was clearly an overeaction.

I suspect the ref has been told on the quiet that he stuffed up. IMO, you won't see another bad call like that all year.

Of course, Soward could always have remembered what he should have learnt as a kid first playing sport, that swearing at the ref is never acceptable. I think its more the aggression he showed in getting in the ref's face than the words themselves that were the problem.

I think the refs generally let the players get away with too much in arguing with them over decisions. The one that really got me recently was Farah telling the touch judge in a game recently something like "you happy you got your face on TV". To me that is disrespect, and he should have been binned and penalised, but the ref did nothing. I also heard Hornby saying to Checcin something like "are you sure about that? thats a big call?" - all that is designed to do is intimidate the ref out of making big decisions which I also think should be stamped out.

I'd actually be happy for the refs to show zero tolerance to the slightest hint of dissent (and call players by their numbers not first names) but they've set the bar so low these days that its an anomaly when they actually penalise anyone.

 

[Perry Como]

Morrow had a baby on radio over the vidot penalty , said worst decision ever seen.
Watched the replay later .

So you and morrow are saying the roosters players should have stopped the tackle and drive back into goal area because one dragon touched vidot ? Absolut crap , so typical of dragons to argue such rubbish .

The section of rules trotted out earlier in thread is irrelevant because that doesn't apply to goal area and legit purpose to force a linedrop .

 

[grouch]

It should've been a penalty to the Dragons because half the Roosters side were in front of the kicker.

But it all added to the amazing wonderful moment that was a miracle victory. So it's prologue

 

[jenninga]

Morrow had a baby on radio over the vidot penalty , said worst decision ever seen.
Watched the replay later .

So you and morrow are saying the roosters players should have stopped the tackle and drive back into goal area because one dragon touched vidot ? Absolut crap , so typical of dragons to argue such rubbish .

The section of rules trotted out earlier in thread is irrelevant because that doesn't apply to goal area and legit purpose to force a linedrop .

The majority in this forum were more opposed to the soft penalty given by Mat "precious" Chooken for the comment by Soward.Why is it typical for Dragons to argue,every teams supporters argue against certain decisions for their sides so don't paint us as whingers exclusively you imbecile.
There is obviously a grey area in the rules regarding being called held in certain situations which is what Hornby was suggesting to Chooken when he blew the penalty.

 

[KiamaSaint]

The refs were so close to making the right call. Checcin is the one that should have called held and it was the Dragons that should have got the penalty.

 

[Willow]

Morrow had a baby on radio over the vidot penalty , said worst decision ever seen.
Watched the replay later .

So you and morrow are saying the roosters players should have stopped the tackle and drive back into goal area because one dragon touched vidot ? Absolut crap , so typical of dragons to argue such rubbish .

The section of rules trotted out earlier in thread is irrelevant because that doesn't apply to goal area and legit purpose to force a linedrop .

Perry, your purple rinse set 'fan' base know more about rugby league than you. Face it, you were an over rated choir boy who couldn't hold a candle to Tom Jones. Nice cardigan.

 

[Blood Shot Eyes]

Just finished watching Dogs v Manly and Titans v Broncos. Talk about crap refereeing. Most of Dogs passes from dummy half were forward, and inthe other game forward passes were thrown all night. What is it with refs? Don't they know what a forward pass is. Most of the decisions went in favour of the home team. Also it seems that this year the Broncos are a protected species.

The tap on to Hoffman was an absolute joke it was at least a metre plus forward (even allowing for bad angles etc)........didnt even call for video referral....yes I know forward passes cant be be sent upstairs but it was a tap on not a pass....makes me laugh if a player propels the ball forward into an opponent its a knock on but a tap on apparently is different.....and your right there appeared to be lots of forward passes by the Broncos .......as far as forward passes from dummy half goes watch Smith for the Storm he throws half dozen every week.

 

[Blood Shot Eyes]

Morrow had a baby on radio over the vidot penalty , said worst decision ever seen.
Watched the replay later .

So you and morrow are saying the roosters players should have stopped the tackle and drive back into goal area because one dragon touched vidot ? Absolut crap , so typical of dragons to argue such rubbish .

The section of rules trotted out earlier in thread is irrelevant because that doesn't apply to goal area and legit purpose to force a linedrop .

I will repeat myself again just for you.....it was a total over reaction by a referee....

Would a penalty been awarded at such a crucial stage of a game in the following:-

1. In a Grand Final....Answer NO
2. In SOO................Answer NO
3. In a Test Match.....Answer NO

Now go and put your slippers on make yourself a hot milo and listen to your 78s

 

[Willow]

Of course, Soward could always have remembered what he should have learnt as a kid first playing sport, that swearing at the ref is never acceptable.

They're not kids.

It's naive to think players don't ever swear while appealing a decision. It happens every weekend.

I think its more the aggression he showed in getting in the ref's face than the words themselves that were the problem.

Nonsense. Think about stage of the game and if commonsense should have prevailed. If it happened to your team and it cost them a match, you'd be screaming. Cecchin is only dodging the full brunt of criticism he deserves because Saints showed a huge amount of ticker and refused to lay down after what was a stupid call.

I think the refs generally let the players get away with too much in arguing with them over decisions. The one that really got me recently was Farah telling the touch judge in a game recently something like "you happy you got your face on TV". To me that is disrespect, and he should have been binned and penalised, but the ref did nothing.

Thanks for proving my point. It rarely happens. But you're talking about real dissent from Farah. Soward was attacking the ref. He was appealing the decision, and he had good reason to think the ref got it wrong. He may have been animated - went about it loudly (by his own admission), but he wasn't being personally abusive or threatening.

Lots of players get away with it.

But Cecchin decided one day to clamp down on it just before fulltime with a penalty right in front.

I also heard Hornby saying to Checcin something like "are you sure about that? thats a big call?" - all that is designed to do is intimidate the ref out of making big decisions which I also think should be stamped out.

Heads up Einstein. Hornby is the captain and is fully entitled to question the decision.

Designed to intimidate? Please.

FTR, Cecchin replied to Hornby and agreed that it was a big call.

I'd actually be happy for the refs to show zero tolerance to the slightest hint of dissent (and call players by their numbers not first names)

Even the great Col Pearce (in the days of players being referred to by number) knew that he was on the same field as men, and he wasn't conducting a Sunday church service.

but they've set the bar so low these days that its an anomaly when they actually penalise anyone.

An honourable pursuit, write the NRL a letter.

But again, thanks for proving my point. They don't show zero tolerance. But for some reason you think it is suddenly acceptable for a ref to go against the grain and award a contest killing penalty on the stroke of full time. Show me some consistency on that front and I might be able to agree. But without consistency, the ruling just becomes an overeaction generated by ego.

I know you think refs should be given the utmost respect and I agree to a point, but respect is earned. The refs should never be above scrutiny or criticism. Furthermore, they should always be aware that fans have paid to watch the players and a game of Rugby League between two teams.

The last thing we need is another Hartley or Harrigan thinking they are the main attraction.

 

[muzby]

just out of curiosity.. when watching the footage again tonight i asked a big question to myself..

why didn't soward catch the ball after it came off the goalpost??

 

[Anon]

The section of rules trotted out earlier in thread is irrelevant because that doesn't apply to goal area and legit purpose to force a linedrop .

Bullshit...here is the rule

From the notes of section 11 The Tackle and Play-The-Ball

Moving tackled player
2. (a) Where opponents do not make a tackle effective in the quickest possible manner but attempt to push, pull or
carry the player in possession, it is permissible for colleagues of the tackled player to lend their weight in order to
avoid losing ground. Immediately this happens the referee should call “Held”
.
where does it state that it doesn't apply "to goal area and legit purpose to force a linedrop" ?:crazy:

 

[Perry Como]

The refs were so close to making the right call. Checcin is the one that should have called held and it was the Dragons that should have got the penalty.

Invent your own sport
In RL tacklers have been forcing a linedrop since 1908

 

[Bang]

Invent your own sport
In RL tacklers have been forcing a linedrop since 1908

Hey Perry read the post directly above your last. It is the rule in question. With that in mind explan how Vidot was not held in the field of play?

 

[Willow]

To quote the late and great referee Col Pearce:

"No one has ever gone to a game to watch a man blow a whistle."

In 1965, Pearce outlined his refereeing philosophy: the importance to remain unnoticed on the field and help the players to turn on a good show for spectators.

"By this, I don't mean the referee should make himself the centre of attraction," Pearce said.

"In fact, the reverse is true. Of all the men on the field the referee should be the most unobtrusive. The less the spectators notice the referee, the better he is."

Pearce stressed that apart from family, no one has ever gone to a game to watch a man blow a whistle.