Female Refs

[Rising from the Ashes]

You're in a thread titled "female refs" you f**king moron. This entire thread is focused on gender.

why are people so hell bent on defending her, she has performed poorly 2 out of 2 games, lost control of both games. Regardless if she is female or male she deserves to be dropped, male refs have copped it just as much over the years but people like you are crying she’s being hard done because she is female and it is just stupid.

 

[Diesel]

If a ref has a bad game, they need to be accountable, regardless of gender or if it’s on field, touchie or bunker. On the flip side, the ref in the GF last year was praised for their great game management

 

[gerg]

She has had two bad games in a row, she had a shocker in the Titans v Raiders game as well, lost control of both games shes been lead ref.

She really didn't. There was nothing wrong with her Titans/Raiders game. The fact that people can distinctly remember a penalty being blown in a Tigers/Broncos game 6 years ago shows how often a referee will blow a whistle when the game is on the line, which is a clear indication of how overblown that was. Hasler was just deflecting from his team's 5th loss in a row. Add to that her boss nitpicking over her performance and what she missed. Have you ever seen that before? Normally Annesley will perform verbal gymnastics to justify one of his referees totally botching a decision.

Nobody in this thread is saying she refereed poorly last weekend. It really isn't the first time that a referee has got it wrong, and her decisions didn't change the game. In the past we've had 7 tackle sets at a critical point of a semi final. We've had Keiran Foran clearly knocking on in a semi final. We've had Inglis dropping it cold in SOO and being awarded a try. What about that cluster of a Tigers / Cowboys game - long whistle, short whistle fiasco?

Honestly the refereeing this year hasn't been that bad. Everyone just likes to whinge about it.

 

[Ride the Lion to Zion]

Let's face it, NRL and AFL don't have "real" laws, they have suggestions or directions that the referee should follow and another suggestion or directive that is exactly the opposite that they should follow.

Both sports are shit shows of unenforceable rules that can be manipulated depending on who and whom is the infringer and the infringe and the person blowing the whistle.

No idea whether this depiction applies to AFL.

It isn't true in RL. If you genuinely think it is, give specific examples.

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

While Klein continues to remain in first grade, so should Badger.

 

[Danish]

No idea whether this depiction applies to AFL.

It isn't true in RL. If you genuinely think it is, give specific examples.

passing off the ground comes to mind.

it’s a penalty everywhere on the field…. Unless you are near the touchline then it’s just fine.

voluntary tackles are illegal….. except directly after completing an obstruction then you are allowed to just drop to the ground and the ref will yell at the defence to put a hand on you.

decoy runners are not allowed to affect the defensive line by drawing in defenders to tackle them in the act of scoring a try… but if mid field and that defender happens to hit the decoy runner with force he’ll be penalised for tackling a man without the ball.

none of these are grey or have opposing rules in the actual rule book. Just in the NRL’s stupid “interpretations”

 

[Valheru]

Do you expect someone playing their 4th game to be at the same standard as Cameron Smith? No. Of course the number of games matters. If you have refereed over 550 top grade and rep games, of course you shouldn't be making the same mistakes as someone in their 4th game.

All those refs I mentioned have been poor for years. None of them have ever gotten the same level of vitriol that is being directed at Badger and Sharpe.

Ridiculous comparison

There is a base level of competence required to be an NRL referee and based on her last two performances she doesn't meet that requirement IMO

Male refs have copped it for years and still do. Who is bagging Sharpe, I think she is reasonable.

 

[Valheru]

While Klein continues to remain in first grade, so should Badger.

Klein got "rested" (dropped) after the debacle of the Roosters/Storm game which you and I had to unfortunately witness together.

I would think that would have been the wisest course of action here for Badger and indeed she would have benefited from that. The NRL have done her no favours IMO by not taking any action.

 

[skeepe]

I'm not defending Klein, he can f**k right off.

The number of games also has nothing to do with it, she is either competent to she isn't. None of the others you have mentioned have refereed as poorly as her this season IMO and certainly none of them has lost control of a game.

Rubbish. Liam Kennedy in particular had something like 4 decisions overturned via captain's challenge in about a 5 minute period, all against the same team.

The match report introduced him as "Referee Liam Kennedy, who had an unhappy night with the whistle".

 

[Valheru]

Rubbish. Liam Kennedy in particular had something like 4 decisions overturned via captain's challenge in about a 5 minute period, all against the same team.

The match report introduced him as "Referee Liam Kennedy, who had an unhappy night with the whistle".

Which game are you referring to?

 

[Bazal]

Probably every match Orc Kennedy has ever refereed tbh

Up there as top tier in the worst refs of all time discussion.

 

[Ride the Lion to Zion]

passing off the ground comes to mind.

Perfectly legal if you were not held and/or kept the ball-carrying arm above the ground.

It's only illegal to pass after the tackle is complete.

it’s a penalty everywhere on the field…. Unless you are near the touchline then it’s just fine.

Really?

voluntary tackles are illegal…..

Surrender Tackle -

"Where the ball-carrier succumbs in readiness to be tackled and is not looking to take any further advantage, the referee will immediately call "surrender" to indicate the tackle is complete, regardless of whether a defender has made contact"

In my view, this is better and clearer than the old voluntary tackle rule.

decoy runners are not allowed to affect the defensive line by drawing in defenders to tackle them in the act of scoring a try… but if mid field and that defender happens to hit the decoy runner with force he’ll be penalised for tackling a man without the ball.

Even if you are right, neither the obstruction rule nor its interpretation changes. Merely a question of whether the bunker are asked to look at it.

 

[skeepe]

Which game are you referring to?

Warriors vs Raiders

 

[edabomb]

I can't believe that any rational person's attempt at deescalating the situation would be to assign that referee to a Warriors game. This is the franchise of fans that reckon they'd have won 30 comps in a row since 95 if not for the refs.

 

[Danish]

Perfectly legal if you were not held and/or kept the ball-carrying arm above the ground.

It's only illegal to pass after the tackle is complete.


Really?


Surrender Tackle -

"Where the ball-carrier succumbs in readiness to be tackled and is not looking to take any further advantage, the referee will immediately call "surrender" to indicate the tackle is complete, regardless of whether a defender has made contact"

In my view, this is better and clearer than the old voluntary tackle rule.


Even if you are right, neither the obstruction rule nor its interpretation changes. Merely a question of whether the bunker are asked to look at it.

if your ball carrying arm touches the ground you ARE held. The ref doesn’t have to call held. That’s why players get done for double movements, and why players get pinged for passing off the ground.

except if they are going into touch. In that situation players routinely throw the ball back infield after their ball carrying arm has touched the ground without penalty.


as for surrender tackles, they do not exist in the rules. Only in the NRL’s “interpretations”. And they go completely against the voluntary tackle rule which forbids a player from voluntarily falling to the ground.

despite this rule, the NRL allows a player who has already committed an offence - obstruction - to nullify that offence by committing another offence - a voluntary tackle. This would basically be like allowing a team to get away with a forward pass providing the receiver falls on the ground and doesn’t “take an advantage”.

 

[Big Pete]

And they go completely against the voluntary tackle rule which forbids a player from voluntarily falling to the ground.

Maybe the rulebook you're referring to is out of date? I don't think fans are aware that they ammended the rule around this since they failed to make mention of it during their press release. They only covered it afterwards during an Annesley press conference.


I'd imagine that interpretation is the modern interpretation, which is why Munster wasn't allowed to just pinch the ball off of Mariner while he was lying motionless on the ground.

 

[Wb1234]

wtaf?

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

wtaf?

Even the cops think we get robbed

 

[Ride the Lion to Zion]

if your ball carrying arm touches the ground you ARE held.

Not if no defender is in contact.

Substantive point was that passing off the ground is not intrinsically illegal. Only after a tackle is complete.

except if they are going into touch. In that situation players routinely throw the ball back infield after their ball carrying arm has touched the ground without penalty.

I've never seen that happen.

as for surrender tackles, they do not exist in the rules. Only in the NRL’s “interpretations”. And they go completely against the voluntary tackle rule which forbids a player from voluntarily falling to the ground.

The surrender tackle interpretation supersedes the voluntary tackle rule.

I see amendments like this as akin to the practice of abrogation in religious texts. It isn't necessary to redraft and republish the formal rulebook after every ad hoc revision.

Bear in mind, my previous reply was to this post -

Let's face it, NRL and AFL don't have "real" laws, they have suggestions or directions that the referee should follow and another suggestion or directive that is exactly the opposite that they should follow.

Both sports are shit shows of unenforceable rules that can be manipulated depending on who and whom is the infringer and the infringe and the person blowing the whistle.

The laws of RL are sufficiently clear and enforceable.

Our abiding problem is that their application is a more complex exercise than many, particularly in the media, have been led to believe.

 

[gerg]

Not if no defender is in contact.

Substantive point was that passing off the ground is not intrinsically illegal. Only after a tackle is complete.


I've never seen that happen.

Maybe watch more games because it does happen. JAC is regularly dragged on the ground towards the touch line and throw it back inside. But.. in the exact same scenario if he was being dragged back towards his own 'in goal' you can guarantee the referee would call held ... but not the sideline.

Just to add. A tackle is complete if the player with the ball is on the ground and a defender touches them - the ball and/or ball carrying arm doesn't need to touch the ground.