Canberra/Broncos reffing SHOCKER!

[salivor]

only when it actually happens mate
that frawley incident was a try for all the money in the world. Particually if that Michaels try is the bench mark, then we can also add Alan Tongue's try early this year, along with a Lincoln Withers one

We're talking 2 years ago and interpretations change. Wasn't there a memo released mid season this year that the video referee wasn't going to be as tough on groundings?

Either way they're very similar incidents. So which is it Raiders fans? If the Frawley incident should've been a try then so should Michaels. Can't have you cake and eat is.

 

[Mr Saab]

only when it actually happens mate
that frawley incident was a try for all the money in the world. Particually if that Michaels try is the bench mark, then we can also add Alan Tongue's try early this year, along with a Lincoln Withers one

Brisbane had some very "interesting" calls go against them in the storm game at Suncorp in their 1st clash of 2007.
Then in the 2nd clash at Olympic park we had Matt Geyer score a try when he dropped the ball over the line.
We lost both games. Shyte happens.
If Brisbane wee good enough they would have won, they were not.

 

[Raider_69]

As you say, the interprations have changed, at the time Frawley's should have been awarded, as was the consistance ruling at the time. It wasnt.

This year, in just games canberra have played, Alan Tongue and Lincoln Withers have been denied trys that had more downward pressure on them, then Steve Michaels had yesterday. So either they got it right yesterday and wrong twice prior (one of which cost us 2 compeition points) or they got it wrong yesterday.

 

[salivor]

As you say, the interprations have changed, at the time Frawley's should have been awarded, as was the consistance ruling at the time. It wasnt.

This year, in just games canberra have played, Alan Tongue and Lincoln Withers have been denied trys that had more downward pressure on them, then Steve Michaels had yesterday. So either they got it right yesterday and wrong twice prior (one of which cost us 2 compeition points) or they got it wrong yesterday.

So the answer is that Frawley should've been awarded a try and Michaels should've been dissallowed? Thought that would be your answer, and you lot are calling Broncos fans biased? :lol:

 

[Raider_69]

If Brisbane wee good enough they would have won, they were not.

Not always the case... Re: See Raiders V Cowboys
we were good enough to win, and should have, if not for another dubious refereeing decision. Once is sh*t house, twice is annoying, three times is season changing. Thats the point, its not just one bad call we've copped, us and other clubs who dont have the profile of a Brisbane or Melbourne, seem to cop the brunt of all the shocking referee calls.

 

[Raider_69]

So the answer is that Frawley should've been awarded a try and Michaels should've been dissallowed? Thought that would be your answer, and you lot are calling Broncos fans biased? :lol:

the answer is, the calls should have been consistant with that season, neither were.

 

[Big Pete]

The funny thing is interpretation on grounding the ball is different in terms of it being loose and a player holding it.

Frawley lost control.

Michaels put enough downward pressure on it.

Again though the Raiders were robbed although Thorns try should've been given to give the Broncos momentum 12-6 before halftime.

 

[salivor]

the answer is, the calls should have been consistant with that season, neither were.

But the Michaels ruling is consistant with the current interpretation. As I said earlier, it was changed earlier in the year as tries like Michaels were being ruled no-try:

NRL players will now be allowed to decline taking conversion attempts, in a direct response to the controversial finish to yesterday's Penrith Panthers and Wests Tigers match at CUA Stadium.

Effective immediately, only captains of NRL teams can now approach the on field referee to decline the shot at goal, after investigation of the official International Rule Book today shed no light on an offical ruling.

The NRL, through the ARL, will also present a submission to the Rugby League International Federation to seek a universal change to the current ruling, as well as a proposed change at international level to the contentious 'grounding of the ball' ruling.

The immediate change at NRL level is another attempt to quash the current controversey surrounding the wave of contentious video referee rulings, with NRL Chief Operating Officer Graham Annesley today announcing the reasoning for the change.

"The rules of the game were framed at a time that did not contemplate the ability of modern technology to dissect every possible frame," Annesley said.

"The video referees concede that they are finding themselves now being forced to question try decision that in the past would have been awarded with little question."

The current Rules state that a try is scored when: " a) placing the ball on the ground with hand or hands..."

The interpretation given to video referees in the Telstra Premiership from this point will add:

"For the purposes of Section a, if, in the process of grounding the ball, the ball leaves the hand(s) but at all times remains in contact with the arm(s) or fingers of the player, the ball will be deemed to have been correctly placed on the ground if there is downward pressure
applied to the ball."

http://www.rugbyleaguedigest.com.au/nrl-amend-contentious-rules/

 

[Raider_69]

But the Michaels ruling is consistant with the current interpretation. As I said earlier, it was changed earlier in the year as tries like Michaels were being ruled no-try:

So explain to me why Alan Tongue and Lincoln Withers were denied tries earlier this year?
Thats raiders fans concern, the inconsistancy, whats a try for some clubs, is not a try for others, and whats not a try for the raiders, is a try for others.

Its not just us either, you can go through any lower profile, lowly rated club and their season is littered with disgraceful VR calls, whilst the higher profile clubs would maybe have 1 or 2

 

[skeepe]

Well salivor, let me retort with photographic evidence (thanks to LimeGreen on GH):

Your little quote there states that the arm or fingers must at all times be in contact with the ball. The ball has clearly come away from Michaels' fingers in the still provided above - therefore, a No Try should have been awarded as determined by the very evidence you provided.

 

[salivor]

So explain to me why Alan Tongue and Lincoln Withers were denied tries earlier this year?
Thats raiders fans concern, the inconsistancy, whats a try for some clubs, is not a try for others, and whats not a try for the raiders, is a try for others.

Its not just us either, you can go through any lower profile, lowly rated club and their season is littered with disgraceful VR calls, whilst the higher profile clubs would maybe have 1 or 2

The rule interpretation came in, in May, I don't know when those 2 incidents happened, they may have been before then. So now your problem is not with the Michaels try being consistant with the interpretation (which it is) but not consistant with other incidents from other completely seperate games? So if that's your concern, would you not be happy with the Carney no-try being consistant with a very similar incident on the same weekend with the Smith no-try?

 

[salivor]

Well salivor, let me retort with photographic evidence (thanks to LimeGreen on GH):

Your little quote there states that the arm or fingers must at all times be in contact with the ball. The ball has clearly come away from Michaels' fingers in the still provided above - therefore, a No Try should have been awarded as determined by the very evidence you provided.

My internet at work won't let me view that picture so I'll have to respond later when I get home and view it from my PC.

 

[lockyno1]

skeepe..his finger is STILL on the ball! I don't like the rule as I believe you should have to place it with your whole hand, but that is a BOTD try any day of the week.

 

[skeepe]

bullsh*t. His hand has clearly come away from the ball as the ball hits the ground.

 

[Raider_69]

The rule interpretation came in, in May, I don't know when those 2 incidents happened, they may have been before then. So now your problem is not with the Michaels try being consistant with the interpretation (which it is) but not consistant with other incidents from other completely seperate games? So if that's your concern, would you not be happy with the Carney no-try being consistant with a very similar incident on the same weekend with the Smith no-try?

Not at all because i believe the interpretation of that rule is wrong, as i explained in a previous post, consistancy for the sake of it on a WRONG interpretation is no better then inconsistancy.

We need the referee's to be consistantly making the right calls. They've been consistacny in only consistantly getting it wrong. Not good enough, particually when it costs sides games... its the business end of the season now, time for them to get it right

Im still yet to see the smith incident, the video on bigpond is down, but if you say it was identical to the carney one, then that was a terrible call also... two wrongs dont make a right salivor.

 

[lockyno1]

No it didn't, the front on view showed he still had a finger on the ball. I t was a try any day of the week!

 

[salivor]

Not at all because i believe the interpretation of that rule is wrong, as i explained in a previous post, consistancy for the sake of it on a WRONG interpretation is no better then inconsistancy.

We need the referee's to be consistantly making the right calls. They've been consistacny in only consistantly getting it wrong. Not good enough, particually when it costs sides games... its the business end of the season now, time for them to get it right

Im still yet to see the smith incident, but if you say it was identical to the carney one, then that was a terrible call also... two wrongs dont make a right salivor

Yet you want consistantcy and consistancy is what you've been given with the Carney and Smith incidents. So now your problem is with the rule?

Did you get to watch the Sunday Roast this week? Phil Gould made a very good point that this is a typical technique of tacklers to either deflect the ball or stop the ball carrier passing alltogether. It was his opinion in these circumstances that the defender should be deemed as playing at the ball, I tend to agree with him.

 

[Big Pete]

Show it when the ball hits the ground skeepe, that's where it counts.

 

[Raider_69]

Yet you want consistantcy and consistancy is what you've been given with the Carney and Smith incidents. So now your problem is with the rule?

Did you get to watch the Sunday Roast this week? Phil Gould made a very good point that this is a typical technique of tacklers to either deflect the ball or stop the ball carrier passing alltogether. It was his opinion in these circumstances that the defender should be deemed as playing at the ball, I tend to agree with him.

Name me one player who attempts tackles with his hands beside him? (Ok, SBW, you got one!)
to effect a tackle you use both arms, and wrap around the attacker, just because his hand is there, doesnt mean he is playing at it. The fact Todd Carney doesnt move his arm in the direction of the footy and the fact he isnt even looking at the ball, says to me he had ZERO intention of attacking the ball, and was infact attacking the player. All Todd Carney was doing, was attempting a tackle with his arms. It's not Todd's fault Perry was stupid enough to pass it into carney, no more then its a defenders fault is a kicker is stupid it enough to reef the ball straight into a defenders legs

Gould is a clown, he barely get anything right these days, he is out of touch, this is no different.

 

[salivor]

Name me one player who attempts tackles with his hands beside him? (Ok, SBW, you got one!)
to effect a tackle you use both arms, and wrap around the attacker, just because his hand is there, doesnt mean he is playing at it. The fact Todd Carney doesnt move his arm in the direction of the footy and the fact he isnt even looking at the ball, says to me he had ZERO intention of attacking the ball, and was infact attacking the player. All Todd Carney was doing, was attempting a tackle with his arms. It's not Todd's fault Perry was stupid enough to pass it into carney, no more then its a defenders fault is a kicker is stupid it enough to reef the ball straight into a defenders legs

Gould is a clown, he barely get anything right these days, he is out of touch, this is no different.

I'm not saying that tackling with your arms is the technique. I'm talking about the technique of coming in from one side with a curved arm out to stop the ball from getting to the outside man. Let's not play dumb here, you know the technique I'm talking about, we see centres and wingers do it all the time to try to cut off a pass to the outside man. It's my opinion that Carney was trying to use this technique.