Penrith v Souths Preliminary Final

[martielang]

Was any Bunnies player actually impeded or denied an opportunity of making a tackle. I haven’t watched a replay yet so only going off what all the commentators media pundits have been saying. Almost everyone seems to be in agreeance the try should have been awarded.

They’ve called it the same way all year though. You run behind your own player and if you continue the play, which they deem an advantage, it’s a penalty.

Other than the Crichton one, I don’t think we were dudded. We just weren’t getting the bounce of the ball the first 30 which had me in the foetal position assuming it was one of those days and going to continue the next 50.

 

[martielang]

Yes but he clearly had upward pressure when he did that.

Bunker was absolutely terrible. We still won by 20.

I think Kennar try should have been looked at. Staines and Critter tries should have been awarded.

The good thing though is we just don't let that shit get to us.

Kennars was looked at. They took a good 2 - 3 mins to confirm the try.

Think people are just whinging for the sake of whinging tbh.

 

[BxTom]

He 100% got that down

Not only did he get it down but Klein was in perfect position to see he put it down. A complete cheat.

 

[Iamback]

They’ve called it the same way all year though. You run behind your own player and if you continue the play, which they deem an advantage, it’s a penalty.

Other than the Crichton one, I don’t think we were dudded. We just weren’t getting the bounce of the ball the first 30 which had me in the foetal position assuming it was one of those days and going to continue the next 50.

Using that ruling Tago's try was a no try, Cleary runs behind a player then passes to Luai

Edwards Try v Souths in Round 23.

That was let go because it had no impact on the try, They started showing common sense but have been found wanting in this finals series

 

[soc123_au]

I thought it was a Try, but Staines was the worst call. However I didn't think Api try was one thought he was short

There was a clear shot of the ball on the line. How it was sent up no try boggles the mind.

 

[Iamback]

There was a clear shot of the ball on the line. How it was sent up no try boggles the mind.

Which is my frustration with the game right now, Games go too long for BS calls.

 

[Iamback]

P

parra leagues has sold out of parra jersey still not there best selling product they have blue and gold lube but a few tubes Hindy a panther rodgering is heading your way lol

I wish I had lube on Sat night

Ass is still burning from the rogering Sutton gave us

 

[soc123_au]

Which is my frustration with the game right now, Games go too long for BS calls.

Yeah. It’s crazy how long it takes for them to toss a coin. The Critta one was nuts, it was obvious and it took an age to get it wrong. I can live with the Staines one even though Fish had no impact on the play at all, Tagos first one was well milked by Ilias, but it was also dumb from Luai. Still had no impact on the play, but I can also live with the call.

 

[martielang]

From the ground (and I haven't seen the replay) it looked the Souths player was trying to pressure Luai but he ran behind JFH which gave him another split second of time - I don't think he was going to tackle him but I still think there was some small advantage.

 

[Iamback]

Yeah. It’s crazy how long it takes for them to toss a coin. The Critta one was nuts, it was obvious and it took an age to get it wrong. I can live with the Staines one even though Fish had no impact on the play at all, Tagos first one was well milked by Ilias, but it was also dumb from Luai. Still had no impact on the play, but I can also live with the call.

The issue with the Staines one was it was around 6 mins between the time the try was awarded and the no try came up.

If it needs that many looks then it is cleary a 50/50 call and go with the on field.

 

[Iamback]

From the ground (and I haven't seen the replay) it looked the Souths player was trying to pressure Luai but he ran behind JFH which gave him another split second of time - I don't think he was going to tackle him but I still think there was some small advantage.

Fish didn't touch the defender though so take out Fish and the result is a try
That should be the bunkers mindset

 

[snickers007]

Running behind your own player in broken play is very different to doing it on a set play, and should be judged as such.

There were 3 defenders in the area. Ilias had already been beaten straight up before Luai ran behind Fish.

Taas and Kennar were coming across to close the gap, and would have got to Luai had he not cut back towards them. But Fish was already in front of him at this stage - so he's no chance of receiving the ball - eliminating the "defender decision" aspect that they look for. It would have probably been more problematic for Souths had Luai pinned his ears back.

And while Kennar does make contact with Fish, it is literally hands on/push off, and caused by him over running the play.

Then the pass was given one step after he went behind.


Had this been a block play, with Fish going through as a decoy, and Luai dummying, and going around behind, fair enough penalise them. But on a broken play, with Fish pushing up in the middle in support, and the scrambling defence over committing I don't like it.

I feel that this is a slippery slope to penalising for obstruction when a winger makes a break, and players line up in support on the inside. Which is ludicrous.

Unfortunately the dope in the Bunker will likely retain his job, because they'll want Atkins as the backup referee at the ground.

 

[betcats]

Running behind your own player in broken play is very different to doing it on a set play, and should be judged as such.

There were 3 defenders in the area. Ilias had already been beaten straight up before Luai ran behind Fish.

Taas and Kennar were coming across to close the gap, and would have got to Luai had he not cut back towards them. But Fish was already in front of him at this stage - so he's no chance of receiving the ball - eliminating the "defender decision" aspect that they look for. It would have probably been more problematic for Souths had Luai pinned his ears back.

And while Kennar does make contact with Fish, it is literally hands on/push off, and caused by him over running the play.

Then the pass was given one step after he went behind.


Had this been a block play, with Fish going through as a decoy, and Luai dummying, and going around behind, fair enough penalise them. But on a broken play, with Fish pushing up in the middle in support, and the scrambling defence over committing I don't like it.

I feel that this is a slippery slope to penalising for obstruction when a winger makes a break, and players line up in support on the inside. Which is ludicrous.

Unfortunately the dope in the Bunker will likely retain his job, because they'll want Atkins as the backup referee at the ground.

Exactly. You will see these kind of broken play runs behind players go uncalled a lot. When offloads go behind the line for example and attackers go back to collect it they often end up running around one of their own players in the scramble and its not called an obstruction, there was a souths last tackle play in our game about 12 minutes to go where they where they tried and inside ball and then started offloading and keeping the ball alive and ended up going backwards 20 metres before latrell went for a 40/20, on that play cook ran behind his own player and passed the ball latrell ran behind his own player and passed the ball both times with penrith defenders as close or closer than Kenner was on the staines try even on the same play when mitchell go the ball again he ran behind his own player again before kicking it. In certain situations like you have described its a penalty but there are many times players run behind their own players and it isnt a penalty.

 

[Iamback]

Running behind your own player in broken play is very different to doing it on a set play, and should be judged as such.

There were 3 defenders in the area. Ilias had already been beaten straight up before Luai ran behind Fish.

Taas and Kennar were coming across to close the gap, and would have got to Luai had he not cut back towards them. But Fish was already in front of him at this stage - so he's no chance of receiving the ball - eliminating the "defender decision" aspect that they look for. It would have probably been more problematic for Souths had Luai pinned his ears back.

And while Kennar does make contact with Fish, it is literally hands on/push off, and caused by him over running the play.

Then the pass was given one step after he went behind.


Had this been a block play, with Fish going through as a decoy, and Luai dummying, and going around behind, fair enough penalise them. But on a broken play, with Fish pushing up in the middle in support, and the scrambling defence over committing I don't like it.

I feel that this is a slippery slope to penalising for obstruction when a winger makes a break, and players line up in support on the inside. Which is ludicrous.

Unfortunately the dope in the Bunker will likely retain his job, because they'll want Atkins as the backup referee at the ground.

It is like they are trying to kill ab lib footy.

The 20m pass on the move is a great ball

 

[Iamback]

In the weekly presser

Staines and Crichton should of been tries

 

[mxlegend99]

Kennars was looked at. They took a good 2 - 3 mins to confirm the try.

Think people are just whinging for the sake of whinging tbh.

Nrl came out and admitted the Staines and critter tries that we had issue with were bunker errors.

"This is clearly a judgement call by The Bunker but after reviewing this again this morning… I think that what we can see here is that the defenders are not obstructed,” Annesley said.

“There is no physical obstruction… so in my view this should not have been called an obstruction.

“In this case this was not an obstruction that should have been called by The Bunker.”

Footage confirms Crichton grounded the ball before Souths winger Richard Kennar.

“There’s clear evidence that Crichton has got the ball down and that should have been awarded a try,” Annesley said.

“These decisions are made quite quickly by The Bunker. I’m not making excuses, we expect these decisions to be right, and clearly that should have been awarded a try.”

Fortunately these didnt change the result. Only the margin.

 

[ColdWetPanther]

Running behind your own player in broken play is very different to doing it on a set play, and should be judged as such.

There were 3 defenders in the area. Ilias had already been beaten straight up before Luai ran behind Fish.

Taas and Kennar were coming across to close the gap, and would have got to Luai had he not cut back towards them. But Fish was already in front of him at this stage - so he's no chance of receiving the ball - eliminating the "defender decision" aspect that they look for. It would have probably been more problematic for Souths had Luai pinned his ears back.

And while Kennar does make contact with Fish, it is literally hands on/push off, and caused by him over running the play.

Then the pass was given one step after he went behind.


Had this been a block play, with Fish going through as a decoy, and Luai dummying, and going around behind, fair enough penalise them. But on a broken play, with Fish pushing up in the middle in support, and the scrambling defence over committing I don't like it.

I feel that this is a slippery slope to penalising for obstruction when a winger makes a break, and players line up in support on the inside. Which is ludicrous.

Unfortunately the dope in the Bunker will likely retain his job, because they'll want Atkins as the backup referee at the ground.

The only thing I would say is if McKenna thought that the rules say that Luai can’t run behind Fish and so therefore must straighten up as he can’t go behind, that could have contributed to him running behind the play.

It is obviously a big if.

Personally I didn’t mind it; called it live. We broke a rule and the try wasn’t awarded.

 

[Fangs]

The Crichton one really tilted me. I don't recall seeing one freeze-frame or even a different angle? That was a ridiculous decision that appeared to be made way too fast.

 

[Goonji]

I have nothing against the Bunnies, but while ever they have Latrell and Walker still playing for them it will always be a little bit special when we beat them. We are no longer everyone’s second favourite team, and given our success are considered grubs and arrogant. Just what comes with success, but Cody Walker takes grubbiness to another level which made his miss on To’o one of those never to be forgotten moments.

As a Panther supporter, i‘d rather our team was hated than pitied. When we were everyone’s second team it was because they didn’t feel threatened by us, they felt sorry for us.

 

[Munky]

The Crichton one really tilted me. I don't recall seeing one freeze-frame or even a different angle? That was a ridiculous decision that appeared to be made way too fast.

One of the biggest genuine WTF moments I've seen.

'No downward pressure'. How can a hand coming from above the ball pushing it into the ground without separation not be downward pressure?

It would be physically possible to not have downward pressure in that situation.