'13 | TEST | Fri | Australia 32-12 New Zealand | Canberra

[Someone]

So the Australian selector picked the MOM....what happens if the Kiwis had won convincingly? Would the NZ selectors have picked it or was the possibility not even considered? Is it even an official MOM or is it just a channel 9 thing anyway?

lol, why open that can of worms at the risk of a meltdown.

:sarcasm:

 

[MSIH]

So the Australian selector picked the MOM....what happens if the Kiwis had won convincingly? Would the NZ selectors have picked it or was the possibility not even considered? Is it even an official MOM or is it just a channel 9 thing anyway?

Well if Cam Smith got it tonight, then he'd get it no matter the result.

 

[Philip_Smith007]

How were the refs even that bad? None of the no try decisions were 100% wrong decisions. It's just that a few of them happening in a row looks like favoritism, when it was really just luck.

First no try to Kiwis... definitely looks like a harsh decision. But the onfield referee thought that the player knocked it on (before a replay I thought that is what happened too) and ruled that way before sending it to the video referee, and the video evidence didn't prove that he was wrong. Last year it would have been a BOTD try, but this year those decisions go down to whatever the onfield referee ruled when there's no evidence that proves he was wrong. Could have gone either way, but the video referee didn't have evidence to overrule the onfield referee.

Then the Whare try... that was most definitely an obstruction and there's no way that try should have been awarded. The ball should have gone back to the Kiwis for the Australia knock-on, but it wasn't a try.

The Prtichard try... he clearly knocked it on.

Greg Inglis try in the second half... first viewing I thought Slater knocked it on. But on replay it was clearly knocked back from Hoffman and Slater didn't play at it. As for the "obstruction" on Gallen/JWH, firstly that play had nothing to do with the try scored. And secondly JWH chose to make contact and throw his hands up to appeal for the penalty. But the try wasn't scored or created through anything that happened near him anyway. Start of the season that is no try, but the rules were changed and it clearly had no effect on the try itself.

Now two of those decisions could have gone the other way and it wouldn't have bothered me. But not one of them is a blatantly wrong decision. It's funny that if one 50/50 call goes against the team, that apparently every decision after that is wrong because of it. Nevermind the fact that the decision was correct according tot he rules.

This is international league, you can tell because their is only one ref, hard to tell when kiwi born with no Aussie heritage playing for Aussie though So how does an NRL rule of no BOD apply?

Frank put ball down on Cam Smiths boot does that equal knock on?

How does Nightingale stop his momentum from tackling a player who has touched the ball? Laws of physics don't let him.
Minor vs Major infringement is the biggest joke and possibly the most blantant form of cheating/favourtisim I have ever seen.

Slater can clearly be seen throwing a hand out which didn't touch the ball, but clearly constitutes playing at it.

Ref brought a dive from Scott when JWG was around his legs but no longer holding them.
They missed Bird going into touch.
There where dodgy passes from both sides.

Kiwis knock on contesting a kick, player retreating, catches ball, but not offside from play???? So how is it a knock on (unless it touched an Aussie player)

Basically most incompetent reffing ever.

Someone doesn't want international to grow, because for most part the game tonight was massively better than what SOO has been serving up lately!

 

[Someone]

This is international league, you can tell because their is only one ref, hard to tell when kiwi born with no Aussie heritage playing for Aussie though So how does an NRL rule of no BOD apply?

Frank put ball down on Cam Smiths boot does that equal knock on?

How does Nightingale stop his momentum from tackling a player who has touched the ball? Laws of physics don't let him.
Minor vs Major infringement is the biggest joke and possibly the most blantant form of cheating/favourtisim I have ever seen.

Slater can clearly be seen throwing a hand out which didn't touch the ball, but clearly constitutes playing at it.

Ref brought a dive from Scott when JWG was around his legs but no longer holding them.
They missed Bird going into touch.
There where dodgy passes from both sides.

Kiwis knock on contesting a kick, player retreating, catches ball, but not offside from play???? So how is it a knock on (unless it touched an Aussie player)

Basically most incompetent reffing ever.

Someone doesn't want international to grow, because for most part the game tonight was massively better than what SOO has been serving up lately!

that ruling definitely didn't make sense to me either.

 

[mxlegend99]

This is international league, you can tell because their is only one ref, hard to tell when kiwi born with no Aussie heritage playing for Aussie though So how does an NRL rule of no BOD apply?

Frank put ball down on Cam Smiths boot does that equal knock on?

How does Nightingale stop his momentum from tackling a player who has touched the ball? Laws of physics don't let him.
Minor vs Major infringement is the biggest joke and possibly the most blantant form of cheating/favourtisim I have ever seen.

Slater can clearly be seen throwing a hand out which didn't touch the ball, but clearly constitutes playing at it.

Ref brought a dive from Scott when JWG was around his legs but no longer holding them.
They missed Bird going into touch.
There where dodgy passes from both sides.

Kiwis knock on contesting a kick, player retreating, catches ball, but not offside from play???? So how is it a knock on (unless it touched an Aussie player)

Basically most incompetent reffing ever.

Someone doesn't want international to grow, because for most part the game tonight was massively better than what SOO has been serving up lately!

Given how you are grasping at straws for each decision to be wrong, it's clearly because you are biased. By the rules as ghey stand, none of the try decisions were blatantly wrong. Onbviously the fact that the referee was giving his opinion of each try before they went upstairs meant that the game was being played under the same rules we have seen in the NRL. He gives his opinion, it stands unless there is proof he was wrong.

Looking for minor ways for every decision to be wrong is just ridiculous. Every try ruling was correct, the outcomes of some calls were a little weird. Ie. australia getting the ball when Whare scored. But to claim every decision is wrong is a joke. Nightingale took out the only player who could make a tackle on Whare, Pritchard clearly knocked on and Slater passed it backwards before Hoffman knocked it straight back at him before he had a chance to play at it.

 

[STORM.99/07]

My goodness yank Slater and bring on Hayne

headbutt hayne was in the place he deserved to be..at home,,,

 

[STORM.99/07]

Well deserved M.O.M award to Cameron Smith..no one better.

 

[JoeD]

Then the Whare try... that was most definitely an obstruction and there's no way that try should have been awarded.

How is what happened there any different than any other time an attacking player drops the ball and is immediately tackled. Or an attacking player is tackled after he passes the ball, which is perfectly legal as long as its not 'late'. Hodges touches the ball and a fraction of a second later is tackled by nightingale. This happens 20 times a game and is not a penalty. If it was a penalty it would be for a 'late tackle' not obstruction.

 

[ozbash]

Actually enjoyed the game, result was a forgone conclusion, but hey, its a 1 off.

we are building nicely for the World Cup.

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

Yeah I thought the Nightingale tackle was the most debatable decision but I can live with the ruling. Hodges didn't have posession of the ball, he just knocked it down.

If he had possession, drops the ball and Nightingale's momentum tackles him after the ball is dropped, then that would be play on, it happens all the time. But he was only tackled on suspicion that he was gonna get the ball. He didn't.

 

[JoeD]

Hodges didn't have posession of the ball, he just knocked it down.

Don't agree. He played at the ball. Whether it's a pass or a tap back or a tip on, if you play at the ball with your hands you are fair game as long as its not a 'late.

 

[Walt Flanigan]

That one involving Hodges is the only one I thought should have been a try. The others were spot-on.

NZ were woeful in the second half and got smashed accordingly. A ref isn't responsible for a 66% completion rate.

 

[typicalfan]

The Whare try was the only one i would have changed Hodges is free game as soon as he touches it. At the very least it should have been kiwi ball.

 

[no name]

I thought the Glen try was a try
I thought the Whare one was a try, as soon as you play at the ball you are free to be tackled
And I thought the Inglis one was a clear cut shepherd, you can't run behind your own player

I still think the Aussies would have won, but those decisions cost the game the chance of a tight finish.

 

[Meth]

Watching the game now.

Disgraceful officiating.

 

[tumbidragon]

That one involving Hodges is the only one I thought should have been a try. The others were spot-on.

NZ were woeful in the second half and got smashed accordingly. A ref isn't responsible for a 66% completion rate.

According to the sooks over the ditch they are...
The only try that got disallowed that I thought was suss was Whare's. A couple of forward passes from the Aussies lead to line breaks and finally try's. But in saying that, a few NZ forward passes were not pulled up. The only difference being, the NZ players don't know how to hit a hole and did not see any gain from such luck. Face it, you were dead set f**king shit in the 2nd half, and got trounced accordingly!

 

[skeepe]

Yeah I thought the Nightingale tackle was the most debatable decision but I can live with the ruling. Hodges didn't have posession of the ball, he just knocked it down.

If he had possession, drops the ball and Nightingale's momentum tackles him after the ball is dropped, then that would be play on, it happens all the time. But he was only tackled on suspicion that he was gonna get the ball. He didn't.

You what? Did we watch the same game?

As soon as Hodges touches the ball he has possession of it and is fair game. That he subsequently drops the ball is his problem. Nightingale commits himself to the tackle when Hodges touches it.

I believe the notes for Section 11 Rule 8 cover this;

If a tackled player loses possession of the ball at the moment of impact with an opponent or with the ground, play shall proceed unless stopped for some other reason, e.g. the ball has been knocked forward.

 

[adamkungl]

Kiwis will soon be the 4th ranked side in International RL.... woeful.

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

If a tackled player loses possession of the ball at the moment of impact with an opponent or with the ground, play shall proceed unless stopped for some other reason, e.g. the ball has been knocked forward.

That doesnt relate to the incident at all. Hodges touched the ball well before Nightingale tackled him.

 

[mxlegend99]

How is what happened there any different than any other time an attacking player drops the ball and is immediately tackled. Or an attacking player is tackled after he passes the ball, which is perfectly legal as long as its not 'late'. Hodges touches the ball and a fraction of a second later is tackled by nightingale. This happens 20 times a game and is not a penalty. If it was a penalty it would be for a 'late tackle' not obstruction.

Nightingale had a hold of him and dragged him about 2 metres out of the way and the try was scored directly where he was dragged from. That doesn't happen 20 times a game.

Hodges knocked the ball on and never actually had possession of it. Nightingale was in that tackle far longer then he needed to be. The Kiwis should have gotten the ball back because Hodges knocked on, but based on the current obstruction rules the no try is 100% correct IMO.