Canberra/Broncos reffing SHOCKER!

[Raider_69]

:lol: coming in from a side with a curved arm?! Its called tackling when someone is on you're inside shoulder, every bloody tackle is completed with a curved arm, you can tackle a bloke if you're arm's straight...

But i know where you're coming from, and yes, its a common thing for a winger/centre to do when there is an over-lap, to be shut down

three things, carney's a half back, attempting a tackle on his opposite halfback and there was no over lap, and when centre/wingers do that you generally see them make a motion with their hand toward the footy and/or their eyes are on the footy, watching it so they can make a play at it...

big differene in that, to what happened with todd carney. Another thing, is when that technique is applied, rarely does the defender pick the ball up and sprint away, he gives up the ghost because he knows he's played at it, very few have the foresight to try and fake human reaction in the heat of the moment, and in the moment, Carney scooted it up and raced for a try. All that combines to the VERY LEAST, Benifit of the doubt.

So either he's a very good actor and has vision and perception of the game of rugby league beyond just about everyone in the game today (and gee id love that to be the case this early in his career), or he did play at it

 

[salivor]

:lol: coming in from a side with a curved arm?! Its called tackling when someone is on you're inside shoulder, every bloody tackle is completed with a curved arm, you can tackle a bloke if you're arm's straight...

But i know where you're coming from, and yes, its a common thing for a winger/centre to do when there is an over-lap, to be shut down

three things, carney's a half back, attempting a tackle on his opposite halfback and there was no over lap, and when centre/wingers do that you generally see them make a motion with their hand toward the footy and/or their eyes are on the footy, watching it so they can make a play at it...

big differene in that, to what happened with todd carney.

But what were Carney's intentions? He was racing up out of the line to to get to Perry and shut him down before he could pass to his outside support. Similar circumstance to a centre/winger trying to cut off an attacker passing to his outside man. Ultimately though we're just going around in circles, it's my opinion that he was using this technique and therefore playing at the ball, it's yours that he was just trying to affect a tackle, neither of us is going to budge.

 

[Raider_69]

But what were Carney's intentions? He was racing up out of the line to to get to Perry and shut him down before he could pass to his outside support. Similar circumstance to a centre/winger trying to cut off an attacker passing to his outside man. Ultimately though we're just going around in circles, it's my opinion that he was using this technique and therefore playing at the ball, it's yours that he was just trying to affect a tackle, neither of us is going to budge.

Carney's intentions are to make the tackle, nothing more, nothing less
and assuming anything more is taking the benifit of the doubt away from the attacking team (which ironically in this case, is the defending player)

BTW: this was posted by a user of the GH forum

So thats what we're calling downward pressure this year?
http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x230/limegreen7/Michaels4.jpg

 

[lockyno1]

The second frame is enough donward pressure imo!

 

[salivor]

So a player racing out of the line isn't trying to shut down an attacking move?

As I said to Skeepe earlier, I can't view those pics from my work PC, I'll comment on them later when I'm home.

 

[Raider_69]

Any player effecting a tackle is trying to shut down attacking play so effectively on that ruling, anyone attempting a tackle is playing at the football... if thats the rule then the call was correct according to the rules, and then rules then need to be changed as that is completely ridiculous

 

[Raider_69]

The second frame is enough donward pressure imo!

relative to the frames either side of it?
I dont think so mate

 

[lockyno1]

relative to the frames either side of it?
I dont think so mate

And that is exactly the problem with the rule, two peoples opinions on the frames are different. But blame the rule. The interpretation however is fine, according to the current rules. As I said I would rather you have to have your whole hand placed on the ball to avoid all this rubbish.

 

[Raider_69]

See broncos fans will make a case on the second frame, but only because that frame on its own is out of context of Michaels action, thats why ive posted the frames before and after, that way people can see where his hand is before he contacts the ball and where it is after it... no control what so ever, at best his thumb brushes the ball when its on the ground... if that is downward pressure, then the rule needs to be revised asap

At best you could give it BOTD based on that 2nd frame... but then where is Todd Carney's benifit of the doubt?
One rule for a high profile club, another for the other end of the scale.

 

[waltzing Meninga]

To be honest the michaels call was a 50/50 one which probably deserved benifit of the doubt.

The problem us raiders fans have is why was the benifit of the doubt not applied to Todd Carney? How can a video ref in his right mind conclusively say that he is certain Carney played at the ball??

It is a fact that some teams get different degrees of "benifit of the doubt" than others depending on their profile and position on the ladder, and that is what us raiders fans are most annoyed about.

 

[Big Pete]

Because it was he way went into tackle. The style promotes attacking the ball thus in the refs mind playing at it.

Michaels was deemed a benefit of the doubt try which is fair.

What about Thorns? I'm beating a dead horse but honestly the Broncos were deadset denied a just 4 pointer. The Raiders no try although controversial is debatable. Hopefully there is clarification.

 

[lockyno1]

Benefit of the doubt goes to the attacking side..Carney was the defender remember that. It was either a try or No Try for Carney.

 

[Paullyboy]

Because it was they way went into tackle. The style promotes attacking the ball thus in the refs mind playing at it.

Michaels was deemed a benefit of the doubt try which is fair.

What about Thorns? I'm beating a dead horse but honestly the Raiders were screwed just as much as the Broncos were in this game.

You are joking about Thorn surely? Not only did the video show he didnt ground it, but it didnt even need to go that far - the player was clearly held and Hayne knew it, watch the replay he's doing the turnover signal with his hand before the ball comes out - he just didnt have the balls to go against the home crowd.

 

[waltzing Meninga]

Benefit of the doubt goes to the attacking side..Carney was the defender remember that. It was either a try or No Try for Carney.

bullsh*t.

The benifit of the doubt goes to the person attempting to score the try.

 

[Raider_69]

Carney WAS THE defender, the moment he picked up the football, he became the attacking player, and since the decision was refering to HIS potential try, the benifit of the doubt belongs to him. Step aside Lockyerno1, this is a discussion between people with an idea, since you're lacking an idea, you have no place here.

Pete,Thorns had enough doubt, the ball carrying arm only ever hit the ground once, and the pictures showed Howells hands were pretty firmly under it. That was a pretty easy one imo. BTW did that come off a shocking call about the player offloading not being called held anyways? Another very ordinary peice of work from Kevin 'Shayne' Hayne

(On a side note, i recon the 2GB song is spot on, if he was going to change his name to match Hayne, he should have gone with Kane Hayne)

 

[waltzing Meninga]

Because it was he way went into tackle. The style promotes attacking the ball thus in the refs mind playing at it.

Michaels was deemed a benefit of the doubt try which is fair.

What about Thorns? I'm beating a dead horse but honestly the Broncos were deadset denied a just 4 pointer. The Raiders no try although controversial is debatable. Hopefully there is clarification.

LOL

Thorn should have been called held 5 seconds before he passed it, the ref had his hand in the air for 3 seconds but didn't do anything.

It was also fairly clear that the ball hit the ground before the line and was then held up.

 

[Big Pete]

You are joking about Thorn surely? Not only did the video show he didnt ground it, but it didnt even need to go that far - the player was clearly held and Hayne knew it, watch the replay he's doing the turnover signal with his hand before the ball comes out - he just didnt have the balls to go against the home crowd.

I find it highly doubtful that one part of the ball didn't find the chalk. Benefit of the doubt easily.

Replays showed Nick Emmett had realised the ball before the ref called tackle. Oh no the ref is trying to screw Brisbane now. :sarcasm:

 

[waltzing Meninga]

I find it highly doubtful that one part of the ball didn't find the chalk. Benefit of the doubt easily.

Replays showed Nick Emmett had realised the ball before the ref called tackle. Oh no the ref is trying to screw Brisbane now. :sarcasm:

the fact is the ref should have called held long before he did. The player had his momentum halted for at least 2-3 seconds and Hayne had his hand in the air for the same period seeimingly waiting for him to pass the ball.

Terrible call from Hayne and shouldn't have even gone to the video ref in the first place

 

[Frank_Grimes]

All this nonsense is beside the point. The consensus has clearly shown that many believe the Carney decision was a rough one. But anyone who believes it changed the outcome is kidding themselves. Ref decisions don't win matches. Holding onto the ball and making smart decisions in attack wins matches. Canberra displayed neither of these attributes on Sunday and it was blindingly obvious that this cost them the match. It's sad that some here still can't accept this.

 

[Raider_69]

BTW just saw the Jason Smith one

BIG Differene between the two, carney was jamming in on Perry with a standard tackling technique, Smith was coming inside out on the Knights player, he intentionally came in on the angle to use the wider round arm technique, a fair arguement can be made that by doing what he did Smith had intentions on not only tackling the played but was also at the same time intenting on impeeding the ball from further progress via the pass.