Justice for the Wests Tigers

[butchmcdick]

I don't remember an instance like this where with 100% certainty the tigers win the game if a) the challenge isn't allowed and b) the penalty isn't given. The game was over at that point and there were no other variables that could have resulted in cowboys winning.

Even with the raiders/dragons non penalty the other week you could still argue that they may have missed the kick as unlikely as that would have been.

Holmes could of missed the kick too

The game is over when the refs blows full time and not before

 

[blaza88z]

There's no logical reason as to why he didn't blow full-time, that's the thing most people can't come to terms with.

It's like he knew there was a big call to be made but didn't want to make that call himself, he wanted the bunker to have to make it and once that happened, there was no discretion, it was black and white.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

I don't remember an instance like this where with 100% certainty the tigers win the game if a) the challenge isn't allowed and b) the penalty isn't given. The game was over at that point and there were no other variables that could have resulted in cowboys winning.

Even with the raiders/dragons non penalty the other week you could still argue that they may have missed the kick as unlikely as that would have been.

Tigers kicked a penalty goal just after half time for a loose carry that was incorrectly labelled a strip. Cowboys challenged it but Klein said the evidence was inconclusive, even though Tom Gilbert's hand was no where near the ball and wasn't making a raking motion. Without that penalty goal Wests Tigers wouldn't have led 26-25 at 79.59 minute mark. The media won't mention this because they do not want to kill their clickbait story.

 

[PARRA_FAN]

Having watched the replay a few times, it appears the on field ref was trying to get advise from the bunker that there couldve been a penalty instead of consulting the touchie. So did the on field ref ask the bunker first or the bunker get it his ear to check something??

It seems the NRL hasnt explained everything in this situation

 

[PARRA_FAN]

Tigers kicked a penalty goal just after half time for a loose carry that was incorrectly labelled a strip. Cowboys challenged it but Klein said the evidence was inconclusive, even though Tom Gilbert's hand was no where near the ball and wasn't making a raking motion. Without that penalty goal Wests Tigers wouldn't have led 26-25 at 79.59 minute mark. The media won't mention this because they do not want to kill their clickbait story.

This is the bit where I'm completely baffled by. As if the bunker cant admit a referee's mistake. We've seen incidents like this where it seems obvious that it goes against the on field decision yet the guy in the bunker cant make up his mind.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

This is the bit where I'm completely baffled by. As if the bunker cant admit a referee's mistake. We've seen incidents like this where it seems obvious that it goes against the on field decision yet the guy in the bunker cant make up his mind.

It seems to happen every game or two.

There's so many grey areas in our game, which doesn't help with consistency. Although that applies to lots of sports. Basketball, soccer and cricket have the same problems.

We've seen the review system in cricket come under scrutiny a few times.

In basketball I see fouls not penalised and fair play incorrectly penalised. Their review system is just as unreliable.

Soccer has had its fair of controversial penalties and non-calls.

 

[johnny plath]

That's a weird one in so far as a) the kicker is gaining no advantage, I.e the ball is still behind the line and b) must happen every game

Yer.. common sense says surely this is just a badly worded way of saying you have to kick the ball from behind the line.. ie you can't be in front of the goal line to take the kick because this would mean you are kicking from overt he line... like when we used to see dropouts taken a good metre over the line.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Yer.. common sense says surely this is just a badly worded way of saying you have to kick the ball from behind the line.. ie you can't be in front of the goal line to take the kick because this would mean you are kicking from overt he line... like when we used to see dropouts taken a good metre over the line.

The kick-off is a place kick. The ball is always on the line, even if the kicker starts from the opposing half to kick to the side of the field as the foot he's kicking with.

 

[Jordan]

Probably stems from the fact the Cowboys have had 10 home games already (including 4 of their last 5), plus the fact 4 of their away games have been in QLD (Broncos, Titans, Warriors, Tigers in Magic Round) and 1 in Darwin.

They'll also play the Bulldogs away in QLD next week.

To be in a competition that's 10/16 (63%) NSW teams with an uneven draw and so far only play 2/18 (11%) games in NSW is a real quirk of the draw.

Brisbane/GC is still 1300km away from Townsville. Heck, Sydney is actually closer. Plus that Bundaberg game is going to be a massive pain in the ass because there is no direct flights. I don't think they get any great advantage out of it aside from slightly more crowd support. Every away game they're on a flight and staying in a hotel which is infinitely more inconvenient than what Sydney teams experience.

 

[blaza88z]

Tigers kicked a penalty goal just after half time for a loose carry that was incorrectly labelled a strip. Cowboys challenged it but Klein said the evidence was inconclusive, even though Tom Gilbert's hand was no where near the ball and wasn't making a raking motion. Without that penalty goal Wests Tigers wouldn't have led 26-25 at 79.59 minute mark. The media won't mention this because they do not want to kill their clickbait story.

Wasn't watching the game at the time but it just sounds like a bad call and that's part of every sport, the main issue with this game is what happened that allowed them to challenge, it was unprecedented. That's what any legal action will be based on, not the actual decision made by the bunker.

 

[Get Rid of The Donkeys]

Wasn't watching the game at the time but it just sounds like a bad call and that's part of every sport, the main issue with this game is what happened that allowed them to challenge, it was unprecedented. That's what any legal action will be based on, not the actual decision made by the bunker.

I cannot see the Tigers winning any appeal.

Dragons were dudded in 2014 when a Melbourne player was tackled after the full-time siren sounded, but was allowed to play the ball and his team went on to score a try to win it. The NRL never reversed the result. Surely that was more controversial than this incident.

 

[Vic Mackey]

Tigers kicked a penalty goal just after half time for a loose carry that was incorrectly labelled a strip. Cowboys challenged it but Klein said the evidence was inconclusive, even though Tom Gilbert's hand was no where near the ball and wasn't making a raking motion. Without that penalty goal Wests Tigers wouldn't have led 26-25 at 79.59 minute mark. The media won't mention this because they do not want to kill their clickbait story.

1) no one has said it was incorrect, this is you saying that which means as much as me saying it was correct

2) you cant say that decision in the 43rd minute changes anything. for all you know the cowboys get the ball, drop it from the scrum, tigers pick it up, score and go on to win by 20

 

[snickers007]

Having watched the replay a few times, it appears the on field ref was trying to get advise from the bunker that there couldve been a penalty instead of consulting the touchie. So did the on field ref ask the bunker first or the bunker get it his ear to check something??

It seems the NRL hasnt explained everything in this situation

Graham Annesley said that the only instructions coming via the ear piece was confirmation that the Cowboys had a challenge available to them. He said that the raw audio from the Bunker and Referee's Coach in the stands is available for the Tigers at their request.

 

[skeepe]

I guess if you want to be philosophical about it, the Tigers beat the Raiders by 2 points in a semi final when Jared Maxwell incorrectly penalised Tom Learoyd-Lahrs in front of the posts, leading to the winning penalty goal.

Jared Maxwell also costs the Sharks a win against the Tigers by incorrectly ruling a double movement against Colin Best and later incorrectly penalising the Sharks for being offside when Todd Garnet’s field goal attempt was charged down and they regathered, so they’ve had their share of luck I guess.

Gee Jared Maxwell really was an awful referee. And now he’s the boss.

Anyway what goes around comes around I guess.

But it was still an atrocious decision and should never have happened.

 

[bad boy bubby]

That's a weird one in so far as a) the kicker is gaining no advantage, I.e the ball is still behind the line and b) must happen every game

It was more so because Holmes is kicking right footed, to get it where he wanted he had to stand on the oppositions side, a left foot kicker would not have to do this kicking to that side of the field.
Major advantage to a right footed kicker, would you not agree?

 

[Vic Mackey]

I guess if you want to be philosophical about it, the Tigers beat the Raiders by 2 points in a semi final when Jared Maxwell incorrectly penalised Tom Learoyd-Lahrs in front of the posts, leading to the winning penalty goal.

Jared Maxwell also costs the Sharks a win against the Tigers by incorrectly ruling a double movement against Colin Best and later incorrectly penalising the Sharks for being offside when Todd Garnet’s field goal attempt was charged down and they regathered, so they’ve had their share of luck I guess.

Gee Jared Maxwell really was an awful referee. And now he’s the boss.

Anyway what goes around comes around I guess.

But it was still an atrocious decision and should never have happened.

Skeepe, you seem to know the rules better then most, complete segue way here however in the 2010 prelim final with 25 seconds to go Darius Boyd fielded a kick in play 10m out from his try line and threw the ball over the dead in goal line. Saints lead by 1, there was no time to restart so they won the game.

A mate of mine (not a tigers fan) who was a referee said that there is a rule which states (I’m phrasing here) ‘a player can not purposely put the ball dead over his own ingoal from the field of play’ however it is fine from within his ingoal. Therefore the tigers should have got a penalty, and had a kick at goal to win the game.

I’ve never bothered to check this, however does a rule like this actually exist?

 

[skeepe]

Skeepe, you seem to know the rules better then most, complete segue way here however in the 2010 prelim final with 25 seconds to go Darius Boyd fielded a kick in play 10m out from his try line and threw the ball over the dead in goal line. Saints lead by 1, there was no time to restart so they won the game.

A mate of mine (not a tigers fan) who was a referee said that there is a rule which states (I’m phrasing here) ‘a player can not purposely put the ball dead over his own ingoal from the field of play’ however it is fine from within his ingoal. Therefore the tigers should have got a penalty, and had a kick at goal to win the game.

I’ve never bothered to check this, however does a rule like this actually exist?

No that's not a rule. The rules specifically state that if the ball goes over the dead ball line with the defending team last touching the ball, it will be a dropout. It doesn't specify whether that touch must be accidental or deliberate or where that touch occurs.

You could possibly make an argument that it falls under conduct contrary to the true spirit of the game, but that would be a massive stretch and they would never call it.

It is, however, a rule in rugby union. In that sport, the ball cannot be deliberately thrown out of play, be that over the sideline, touch-in-goal line or dead ball line.

 

[Vic Mackey]

No that's not a rule. The rules specifically state that if the ball goes over the dead ball line with the defending team last touching the ball, it will be a dropout. It doesn't specify whether that touch must be accidental or deliberate or where that touch occurs.

You could possibly make an argument that it falls under conduct contrary to the true spirit of the game, but that would be a massive stretch and they would never call it.

It is, however, a rule in rugby union. In that sport, the ball cannot be deliberately thrown out of play, be that over the sideline, touch-in-goal line or dead ball line.

Ok cheers that makes sense as he refereed Union too so I’m guessing had them mixed up

 

[Canard]

Wasn't watching the game at the time but it just sounds like a bad call and that's part of every sport, the main issue with this game is what happened that allowed them to challenge, it was unprecedented. That's what any legal action will be based on, not the actual decision made by the bunker.

Surely you can't argue "this has never happened before" so it must be illegal?

On what basis could that be challengeable?

 

[Generalzod]

Can someone educate me please I thought you were given 10 seconds for a captain to challenge a refs decision, it took longer than that for Chad to to indicate he wanted the incident reviewed.