NRL officially docks 2 points over Bulldogs 14 players

[Timmah]

Don't get me wrong, I fully understand your logic and reasoning, but it's simple - the rules don't allow for the points to be allocated to you guys. And that's even dependent on the points being taken, which isn't yet a forgone conclusion...

 

[mxlegend99]

Just watched it then, the referee didn't yell held twice. Grab a tissue, have a cry and move on dude. You WILL NOT get the points, you sad prick :lol:

He did yell twice. Turn the volume up... it's quiet easy to hear.

I know we won't get the points FFS. The point is that regardless of the Bulldogs cheating at the end, you didn't deserve them in the first place. :roll:

At the end of the day it takes cheating and multiple referee mistake in your favour for the Bulldogs to get a win over the Panthers. Even then they had their two points taken off them. :lol:

 

[bartman]

And that's even dependent on the points being taken, which isn't yet a forgone conclusion...

:lol:

 

[Timmah]

He did yell twice. Turn the volume up... it's quiet easy to hear.

I know we won't get the points FFS. The point is that regardless of the Bulldogs cheating at the end, you didn't deserve them in the first place. :roll:

At the end of the day it takes cheating and multiple referee mistake in your favour for the Bulldogs to get a win over the Panthers. Even then they had their two points taken off them. :lol:

As opposed to Penrith, who haven't won a game in 2009 :lol:

:lol:

Oh, I didn't know you were Graham Annesley.

FYI, the appeal will be heard Monday, at which time the points will either remain ours, or be stripped. Therefore, it is not yet a forgone conclusion.

 

[Johns Magic]

As opposed to Penrith, who haven't won a game in 2009 :lol:

Only because the Bulldogs cheated.

 

[bartman]

Oh, I didn't know you were Graham Annesley.

FYI, the appeal will be heard Monday, at which time the points will either remain ours, or be stripped. Therefore, it is not yet a forgone conclusion.

:lol:

It'd be better worded "at which point the points will remain stripped as already ruled, or be miraculously reinstated on some fiddly technicality".

 

[Timmah]

Oh, your opinion is fact now? :lol:

 

[ouwet]

Extra man drama dogs League

Written by: Adrian Rovere
Mar 26, 2009 9:55am
Every man and his dog is getting themselves into a lather over what the penalty should be for the 14 players on the field drama, when it is so simple to resolve.
All that the NRL need do is apply the following criteria in determining the appropriate penalty:-
1) If the additional player on the field was instrumental in that team winning the game they should be docked the competition points; or
2) If the extra man on the field gave that team no advantage a monetary fine should apply with the amount dependent on the severity of the breach. For example the time the player spent on the field and what activity he was involved in during that time.
Quiz all the clubs and they would be united in their desire for the punishment to fit the crime. No two breaches are the same and there are mitigating circumstances with every incident where an extra player has entered the field.
You only have to look at the justice system to see that every law comes with a wide range of sentences and each ruling handed down is the decision of the presiding judge after hearing all the submissions from both the prosecution and the defence.
What happened last Saturday night in the Panthers-Bulldogs game should be treated in isolation and not compared to any similar breach that has occurred before.
The somewhat hasty decision to strip the Bulldogs of their two competition points flies in the face of public opinion - including many non-Bulldog supporters. Even Panther legend Greg Alexander is of the belief that a docking of points for what unfolded against his club is harsh and that a fine was a fairer option.
The NRL should also take into account the gracious manner in which the Bulldogs club has admitted its guilt in much the way the judiciary gives a downgrade to a player who takes an early guilty plea.
There would be certain sections of the rugby league community who would be revelling in this latest blow to hit the Bulldogs, but they should instead applaud a club that has taken giant strides in re-inventing itself as The Family Club off the field and The Entertainers on the field.
Here is an opportunity for the NRL to adopt the aforementioned criteria and if it is warranted, overturn its decision and replace it with a fine. They would be the recipient of much kudos if they showed that they were willing to be flexible and embrace change that advances the game's image whilst at the same time acknowledges they not only listen to public opinion but will act if it deems necessary.
You cannot ask more from a governing body. Over to you Mr Gallop…



Brilliant Article... Bolded paragraph is so true!

 

[Timmah]

Phil Gould has his head screwed on here and makes a few good points:

THE NRL's decision to strip the Bulldogs of two competition points is too harsh. We need a more appropriate penalty for these offences.
The Bulldogs are guilty only of an unfortunate miscommunication during the tense final moments of the game. There is no suggestion they knowingly cheated. This is a misdemeanour, not a capital offence.
Yes, the winning try was scored just after the illegal 14th player came onto the field. However, the Bulldogs weren't aware they had 14 players and didn't deliberately use this extra man to their advantage. The Panthers were totally unaware the Bulldogs had an extra man and never claimed to be disadvantaged during the winning play.
Plus the punishment doesn't pass the ultimate test: would you apply the same penalty if this were a grand final? Let's see now: the Bulldogs win the GF. At full-time, we present them with the trophy. Victory lap, celebrations, street parades etc. Two days later, we discover they fielded a 14th man during the winning play. What do we do? Do we strip them of the title? If so, who wins the competition?
The Panthers won't receive the two competition points if the Bulldog decision is upheld in this instance. Therefore, we must assume that if this were a grand final, they wouldn't be declared premiers either if the Bulldogs were disqualified.
We can't name a winner. Eight months of blood, sweat and tears for nothing. The NRL would be a laughing stock. Clearly, this disqualification penalty doesn't fit the breach.
What if the Bulldogs led the Panthers by 30 points when the illegal player wandered onto the field for the dying moments of the contest? Do we still take their premiership points? What if the Bulldogs lost this game despite having an extra man? Do we fine them? If so, why doesn't a fine apply in this instance?
The NRL must be vigilant in these matters and clubs need to respect the rules regarding interchange procedures. However, the stripping of premiership points is not a fair penalty.
The responsibility for interchanges is supposed to rest with the NRL officials. The interchange official should have been watching the play, noticed that Ryan had come back on and alerted the on-field officials (the touch judge on his side), and play should have been halted.
Clearly, there are two better solutions. The preferred penalty would be a healthy fine and to put the club on notice that greater fines would apply were they to reoffend. Or, we can replay the match and give both teams a shot at the points. As it stands, these two points now vanish into the stratosphere never to be seen again. That's ridiculous.
Both the Bulldogs and the Panthers have a bye on the same weekend in the split round 9. I'm sure if you offered them a replay, they'd jump at the chance. Give all game profits to the children's hospitals. TV broadcasters get another game. Everybody wins.
The way it stands, this match has no winners.

http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/new...rand-final-test/2009/03/25/1237656994267.html

 

[bartman]

Oh, your opinion is fact now? :lol:

:lol:

My statement is fact - the NRL has ruled that the points bve deducted. If they are not, it will be due to an appeal based on a technicality.

These 2 points are like OJ's glove!

 

[Mr Saab]

Brilliant Article... Bolded paragraph is so true!

Adrian Rovere is a self confessed Bulldogs tragic who calls every radio station under the sun sproting the usual crap
Take that article with a grain of salt.

The dogs should lose their 2 points...and will lose them.

 

[Timmah]

:lol:

My statement is fact - the NRL has ruled that the points bve deducted. If they are not, it will be due to an appeal based on a technicality.

These 2 points are like OJ's glove!

:lol: You're a deadset goose.

 

[Timmah]

Adrian Rovere is a self confessed Bulldogs tragic who calls every radio station under the sun sproting the usual crap
Take that article with a grain of salt.

The dogs should lose their 2 points...and will lose them.

Why is his opinion any less valid than yours? :roll:

 

[bartman]

:lol: You're a deadset goose.

:lol:

Seriously though, isn't the Bulldogs' appeal of the NRL's ruling based on a technicality?

 

[Pass the Ball]

Hang on - Have I got this correct...???

Panthers are winning the game 13 on 13..

Bulldogs then play 14 against 13 and score the match-winning try...

Now the Bulldogs want to keep the two competition points...

Is this correct..???

 

[ibeme]

Hang on - Have I got this correct...???

Panthers are winning the game 13 on 13..

Bulldogs then play 14 against 13 and score the match-winning try...

Now the Bulldogs want to keep the two competition points...

Is this correct..???

The argument is about whether the 14th man effected the outcome, given that Michael Ennis was down injured in the back play (the whole reason why Ryan was called back on in the first place), meaning that there were only ever 13 men in the attacking line, and that Andrew Ryan did not really effect the play for those few seconds.

Even the Panthers agreed that it did not effect the outcome. They've had an amazing change of heart today though.

Teams have successfully appealed the severity in the past based on the same argument.

 

[Johns Magic]

The argument is about whether the 14th man effected the outcome, given that Michael Ennis was down injured in the back play (the whole reason why Ryan was called back on in the first place), meaning that there were only ever 13 men in the attacking line

But if there hadn't been an illegal extra player on the field there would have been 12 in the attacking line.

Players go down injured in backplay all the time, it's part of footy. Other team's don't throw on an extra player just because it suits them.

What if everytime a player copped a late shot, they just laid down and tried to milk a penalty while another player jumps in his spot in the defensive line? After all, there would only be 13 players in the line, and Ennis is the biggest milker in the comp.

 

[typicalfan]

Andrew Ryan was standing at first receiver on the other side of the ruck. How is he not effecting play there.

And Ennis being down doesnt aid your argument. There was no penalty, so no free replacement, so Ennis being down didn't give Andrew Ryan the right to run on.

Please please take the blue and white glasses off.

 

[richie8u]

what happens if 2 people in a car crash,
one runs up the others bum.
the person at the back is at fault right?
what if the other person isnt licenced and drunk?
how do the insurance companies look at it?
simple the person at the front should not have been there and then is would not have happend.
same here.

 

[ibeme]

But if there hadn't been an illegal extra player on the field there would have been 12 in the attacking line.

Players go down injured in backplay all the time, it's part of footy. Other team's don't throw on an extra player just because it suits them.

What if everytime a player copped a late shot, they just laid down and tried to milk a penalty while another player jumps in his spot in the defensive line? After all, there would only be 13 players in the line, and Ennis is the biggest milker in the comp.

Well, I guess that might all come up in the appeal process, and those who make the decisions will determine whether or not this was an innocent error or a deliberate attempt to flout the rules. I think it was the similar situation with the Cowboys wasn't it? And they got off with a fine.

Whatever the decision, I'll live with it.