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!

2022 R16 Fri - Penrith 26-18 Sydney @ BlueBet

Round 16: Penrith v Sydney

  • Penrith Panthers

    Votes: 14 87.5%
  • Sydney Roosters

    Votes: 1 6.3%
  • Draw after Golden Point

    Votes: 1 6.3%

  • Total voters
  • Poll closed .


Nah, should never have been a penalty. Defender did nothing wrong at all, sometimes shit just happens.

In saying that it's fair to say Robbos boys have received a lot more soft penalties from Teddy being unco and slipping over into some poor pricks forearm at hip height. I'd confidently bet my balls if you added up the "dangerous/high tackle penalties that are more to do with the attacking player than the defender then Robbo would be well in front.
Yep. Atleast it was consistent with how they rule accidental contact
NRL have said the penalty on Verrills just before halftime should not have been awarded. It was an incorrect call (source: https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nr...s/news-story/9fdd9a786337a10c960903711a5c0323) -

NRL head of football Graham Annesley has admitted referees got two controversial decisions wrong in Round 16.

The first took place at a crucial point in the Panthers and Roosters clash on Friday night, handing the Penrith side a penalty for a Sam Verills tackle which was considered dangerous.

The moment in the 39th minute seemed innocuous, but referee Gerard Sutton saw otherwise after Scott Sorensen’s face managed to hit the ground.

“In the history of the game, most would agree that is a copy book around the legs tackle,” Annesley said in his Round 16 briefing.

“Sorensen goes over his shoulder, there is no lift at all, you can see he is squatting there, Verrills is actually falling to the ground as he makes the tackle.

“We don’t believe there is any reason why this tackle should have been penalised.

“This is by no means a justification, if you are in the referee’s view you can probably understand in the spur of the moment what he sees.

“He sees Sorensen come over the top and then sees him go headfirst into the turf, obviously not what anyone would like to see but it is no fault of the tackler.

“It is a copy book tackle that has gone wrong from the perspective of the ball tackler.

“It was through no fault of the tackler, and it should not have been a penalty.”