NRL admit f/pass error V Panthers

[age.s]

What constitutes "blatant"?

The pass was at worst 50cm forward if at all. Personally I think it certainly floated forward but that doesn't matter. I would hardly say it was a "blatant" toward pass.

fact is things look much more "blatant" when they are happening against your side, as plenty of calls look to me against the roosters.

I'd much rather see the referees boss chastising one of his team for not sending someone for a deliberate elbow than have him making a line ball forward pass the key discussion point of the weekend. I mean FFS that pass ruling wasn't even close to the worst ruling in that single game (not calling Toops out was far worse)

I was more commenting on the idea that you can't tell if a pass was forward with video. You pretty obviously can but I agree that it's almost impossible to define. We'd be here complaining about a legitimate game winning try being pulled back because the video ref fixated on a marginal if they attempted it. I was imprecise when I said I'd be fine with it tbf.

I don't really want to talk about the game on the weekend. The pass was blatantly forward (and yes I think it's one that is clear on video) but Moylan could have won us the game by actually going hard for the ball, covering Gordon or doing actual fullback cleanup work rather than waiting for a call that wasn't coming.

If we want to actually see improvement in the performance of the officials we could start with asking whether that touchie will ever be seen in NRL again. If the answer is yes we've found our problem.

 

[franklin2323]

I fail to see what a statement like this achieves. though the VR should be able to rule on forward passes

 

[God-King Dean]

Morris was in

 

[lockyno1]

This is where the captains challenge should be introduced. Blind freddy knew it was forward. 2 challenges per half.

 

[Captain Apollo]

This is where the captains challenge should be introduced. Blind freddy knew it was forward. 2 challenges per half.

Even if they had the Captain's Challenge, with the Video Referee not being able to rule on forward passes, you'd be wasting a referral as that was the only issue in relation to Gordon's second try.

 

[lockyno1]

Even if they had the Captain's Challenge, with the Video Referee not being able to rule on forward passes, you'd be wasting a referral as that was the only issue in relation to Gordon's second try.

That is what I'm saying, you should be able to challenge EVERYTHING, that should include forward passes. That is my view anyway.

 

[Captain Apollo]

That is what I'm saying, you should be able to challenge EVERYTHING, that should include forward passes. That is my view anyway.

Ah, ok. That wasn't clear to me in your initial post. Now I understand what you were getting at.

 

[Valheru]

Haven't read most of the discussion but I have seen a couple of people suggest this was "match deciding".

If it happened inside the final minute with no recourse for the Panthers - fine.

It happened with what, five to go? Penrith didn't score to get back in front - their fault.

Exactly. That's not to mention what happened in the 71 minutes prior to the incident. If I was a Panthers fan I would be super annoyed at Tyrone Peachy for being 2 metres offside chasing a kick which cost the Panthers a try.

 

[TheFrog]

I was more commenting on the idea that you can't tell if a pass was forward with video.

The only way would be to make a forward pass like a knock on. None of this floated forward, blown by the wind, taken forward by momentum shite. If a pass lands closer to the opposition deadball line to where it was thrown, it is forward. Then you could rule on it by video. But it won't happen.

Not the first time Archer has weighed in on decisions. Last year the Raiders fans screamed for two weeks over a field goal wall that wasn't penalised. Supporters of every team complain when they get a dud call, especially near the death.

 

[Timmah]

The NRL put out a video last Monday showing a Roosters try to Boyd Cordner which should have been disallowed.

It's shit but you don't see the Bulldogs blowing up about it - it was a shit call, it was admitted, we still lost, we move on.

 

[TheFrog]

Exactly. That's not to mention what happened in the 71 minutes prior to the incident. If I was a Panthers fan I would be super annoyed at Tyrone Peachy for being 2 metres offside chasing a kick which cost the Panthers a try.

For someone advising others to let go of it, you sure are hanging on to it yourself.

The NRL put out a video last Monday showing a Roosters try to Boyd Cordner which should have been disallowed.

Two weeks in a row huh? Explains why Roosters fans are so defensive. Shall we just award them the premiership now and save time?

It's shit but you don't see the Bulldogs blowing up about it

They certainly did against us a couple of years ago when a couple of marginal try calls didn't go their way.

 

[Captain Apollo]

The only way would be to make a forward pass like a knock on. None of this floated forward, blown by the wind, taken forward by momentum shite. If a pass lands closer to the opposition deadball line to where it was thrown, it is forward. Then you could rule on it by video. But it won't happen.

If that occurred, then players would literally have to come to a complete stop before passing the ball. It is verifiable that you can throw it forward, yet the momentum of the player who was running has imparted motion to the ball which causes the ball to travel forward, even though it was passed in a backward direction out of the hands.

 

[chrisD]

I can cop that it was forward

What I resent is people saying Penrith were robbed

A forward pass wasnt the reason they lost. They lost because the Roosters created an overlap - if the pass was backwards, we've have the e act same result.

It would be nice if that were the case, except in the real world there was no overlap, DWZ was there and forced the panic kick. The forward pass put him illegally further past DWZ, who was measuring how far to step in while still being able to turn on his man. The result was the play was further ahead of the rest of the field than it should have been and DWZ didn't get as good a crack at him as he was entitled to.

And all this is besides the fact the sliding defence did its job and forced the error.

 

[Tronald Crump]

100%

There is still a try scored if the pass goes backwards in which case panthers fans are talking about their team's inefficient attack and dodgy right side defence, which is exactly what they should be talking about.

WRONG.
DWZ had just missed Toopoo.
The winger just got away from DWZ. If Mitchell's pass to Toopoo was straight or behind him Toopoo would have been set a step or 2 back to take it,hence allowing DZW more time to get him or severely impeding his kick.
A try may have still been scored but the execution would have been much harder.

 

[Valheru]

The only way would be to make a forward pass like a knock on. None of this floated forward, blown by the wind, taken forward by momentum shite. If a pass lands closer to the opposition deadball line to where it was thrown, it is forward. Then you could rule on it by video. But it won't happen.

This just simply won't work as 95% of the passes thrown at high speed like the one we are talking about are caught in front of where the pass was made. That is just the basic laws of physics and momentum.

The writing was on the wall in the 9s with forward passes. What players and fans alike have to accept is that these things are going to be a lottery. A clear example is the sharks one which was very similar to the roosters one but called forward. These things will even out over the season and believe me, it will happen to the roosters too.

I would much rather see a crackdown of forward passes from dummy half. of which there are half a dozen a game as there is no excuse for those going forward.

 

[betcats]

I bet half these roosters fans having a go at people for whinging about this blatant incorrect call are the ones who were claiming there was an NRL conspiracy to do with the roosters losing penalty counts a few years ago. Anyway I don't really care about it, it wasn't the reason we lost but as if people aren't going to be pissed off when the winning try was(obviously) not a try. Every club blows up about that shit.

 

[Tronald Crump]

Penrith fans have only got 23 rounds to get over this.

Not really I have already moved on to next week.
Roosters fans have a lifetime to get over the 03/04 grand final losses.

 

[umina panther]

Haven't read most of the discussion but I have seen a couple of people suggest this was "match deciding".

If it happened inside the final minute with no recourse for the Panthers - fine.

It happened with what, five to go? Penrith didn't score to get back in front - their fault.

Was it 2008? When the Dogs put a 14th player on the field to create an overlap and scored the match winner against Penrith? Now that was f**king joke we didn't get the 2 points

 

[Timmah]

Was it 2008? When the Dogs put a 14th player on the field to create an overlap and scored the match winner against Penrith? Now that was f**king joke we didn't get the 2 points

"Dogs put a 14th player on" - you make it sound like it was pre-planned lol.

Can you outline to me anywhere in NRL history there's a precedent to give a losing team two points? Get a clue.

 

[bileduct]

I really don't understand the point of Archer doing this.

What determination can he make that the video ref could not have made after reviewing the footage?

Watch for the one week crackdown on forward passes where half the passes called up aren't even forward.