Ref and Bunker Decisions

[Bazal]

B was broken by Storm, whilst C was also broken by Penrith. Both teams offended, what should the result have been?

B is before C in the alphabet derrrr

*Would not be surprised if this is the actual NRL inDerpretation

 

[Pezz70]

B was broken by Storm, whilst C was also broken by Penrith. Both teams offended, what should the result have been?

Advantage goes to the team receiving the ball. The first infringement is by the player taking the restart the ball is dead before he kicks it

 

[soc123_au]

So it doesn’t matter that some Penrith players were also offside?

Genuine question.

Not in that situation unless they are involving themselves in the play. Otherwise most quick 20 metre restarts would be an automatic penalty.

The advantage of the quick restart is that most of the defenders are offside giving the attacking team a weak defence to run at.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Not in that situation unless they are involving themselves in the play. Otherwise most quick 20 metre restarts would be an automatic penalty.

The advantage of the quick restart is that most of the defenders are offside giving the attacking team a weak defence to run at.

But as we’ve seen, after a captains challenge the law must be followed, and the law states nobody can encroach within the 10.

 

[soc123_au]

But as we’ve seen, after a captains challenge the law must be followed, and the law states nobody can encroach within the 10.

I honestly dont know how the rule is written, just the eye test on how it is interpreted. If that were the case and thats how it was policed it would be a penalty every time as the kick chasers tried to get back onside.

Last nights example was one that doesn't really come up much. Not sure if taking the kick triggers a different rule than taking the tap? But when kicking it seems that it's treated the same as a regular drop out or kick off.

 

[snickers007]

But as we’ve seen, after a captains challenge the law must be followed, and the law states nobody can encroach within the 10.

The defensive players have far less control in this situation.

The kicker has the ability to not kick/tap the ball if he has offside players. It's to his advantage to try to restart play while defenders are offside. The onus is completely on the kicker.

Think about it this way:
- The kicking teams players must be behind when the ball is kicked
- Defensive players aren't offside until the ball is kicked

One penalty is determined at the point of the kick, the other after the kick is taken.

Also, keep in mind that these rules were written when there was to be 'no advantage from restarts of play'. Eg. All players must be onside and ready before each kick-off, drop-out and 20m restart.


Gotta say though, it was a great play from Melbourne. And once again highlights that the current Captains Challenge model is broken.

Penrith challenge because they believed the first Storm player tapped the ball and then passed to Papenhuyzen. That should be the basis of the challenge. If you think the ref got it wrong, call your shot - tell him exactly what happened.

Checking "everything" is ridiculous.

 

[gerg]

But as we’ve seen, after a captains challenge the law must be followed, and the law states nobody can encroach within the 10.

The defensive line has the right - if they are offside at the commencement of the play - to continue to retreat until they are considered onside, so long as they don't get involved with the attacking player. Papenhuyzen didn't tap and run and no Penrith defenders involved themselves in the play, both of which means they cannot be considered offside. The first indiscretion was Anderson being offside.

 

[Captain Apollo]

B was broken by Storm, whilst C was also broken by Penrith. Both teams offended, what should the result have been?

In that situation the onus would be on the kicker to not kick the ball untill all his team is onside. That's the first breach as the ball was not in play until kicked.

 

[Saxon]

...And once again highlights that the current Captains Challenge model is broken.

Penrith challenge because they believed the first Storm player tapped the ball and then passed to Papenhuyzen. That should be the basis of the challenge. If you think the ref got it wrong, call your shot - tell him exactly what happened.

Checking "everything" is ridiculous.

100% agree.
Challenge should be for one specific thing only. Not checking everything. Sometimes lately, challenges have just been desperate fishing expeditions.


In this case, Howarth (or was it Anderson) being one step offside on the opposite side of the field made precisely zero difference to the outcome. Technically an offence but absolutely irrelevant to the challenge.

 

[Pjf04b]

It happens all the time. Last week against Parramatta Penrith challenged a knock on and got penalised for an escort!

 

[gerg]

100% agree.
Challenge should be for one specific thing only. Not checking everything. Sometimes lately, challenges have just been desperate fishing expeditions.


In this case, Howarth (or was it Anderson) being one step offside on the opposite side of the field made precisely zero difference to the outcome. Technically an offence but absolutely irrelevant to the challenge.

Are you a Storm fan?

 

[Diesel]

The whole thing needs an overhaul, no coaching the refs from the bunker during the game, no stopping play and going back 2-3 tackles for a penalty (happens against the Warriors a bit), if it’s not caught as it happens, the MRC can watch the game the next day for fouls. Refs and bunker need to be accountable and if this is the standard the nrl is happy with, we need new people in the admin and on field/bunker. Too many calls are not consistent

 

[Marshall_magic]

Not a call but a good back and forth from last night after Aiden Sezer had to retake a kick for line because he wasn’t on the mark

Sezer: it’s a better game when you let it flow
Belinda Sharpe: it’s a better game when you kick it on the mark

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Yea, my team lost this weekend.

but watching other games, at a very, very low ebb.
Half of the calls are laughable, or second guesses at best.

 

[Captain Apollo]

Friday night, as one game, reinforced the whole 10 in the sin bin for foul play is stupid. Connor Watson cops a forceful shoulder to the head which sees him ruled out for the rest oif the game, and quite probably next week as well. The offender is penalised and gets 10 in the bin. Later in the game, Whyte was offside at a penalty from Parramatta and is quite rightly sent to the bin. The NRL needs to stop worrying about not sending players off because it will "ruin the contest".

The pussy footing around by the NRL and what they want its match officials to do is what makes this so annoying and, for mine, doesn't stamp out foul play. It keeps occurring as players feel they can get away with things because of the reluctance to send anyone off.

 

[Bazal]

Friday night, as one game, reinforced the whole 10 in the sin bin for foul play is stupid. Connor Watson cops a forceful shoulder to the head which sees him ruled out for the rest oif the game, and quite probably next week as well. The offender is penalised and gets 10 in the bin. Later in the game, Whyte was offside at a penalty from Parramatta and is quite rightly sent to the bin. The NRL needs to stop worrying about not sending players off because it will "ruin the contest".

The pussy footing around by the NRL and what they want its match officials to do is what makes this so annoying and, for mine, doesn't stamp out foul play. It keeps occurring as players feel they can get away with things because of the reluctance to send anyone off.

Sin bin was sufficient.

The issue is more that ten for a lazy piece of marker work or not getting back onside is probably too much with the way they use the sin bin now.

You'd probably want 3 bin periods IMO. Short for something minor, 10 for genuine professional fouls and lesser fouls, maybe a longer period for worse fouls. BUT then ofc you give these potato refs more discretion and we've seen how that goes.

 

[Warrimoo3]

Just fast forwarded through the past 2 episodes of NRL 360 and today’s episode of NRL tonight. Everyone ripped into Annesley and the refs. Even the mild mannered Tim Mannah. Except Cooper Cronk. He said the Newcastle players “were in front of the kicker and moved forward”.

Brent Read said he asked Annesley about the Kennedy offside and Annesley replied”there is a chance Will Kennedy is offside in that play”. A chance. Seriously. Reminds me of the story about the printer that wouldn’t print because it was out of ink. A 3 month investigation came to the conclusion that it was possible that the printer was out of ink. Bureaucracy at it’s finest.

BTW , does Crawley pay for his Botox injections or does Foxtel pick up the tab ?

 

[kurt faulk]

BTW , does Crawley pay for his Botox injections or does Foxtel pick up the tab ?

Haha, what a bozo that guy is. His magnificent idea for golden point was the winner gets 2 points and the loser gets 1 point. So somehow the 2 points on offer becomes 3 points. f**k me dead these guys wouldn't know their head from their arse.

.

 

[Captain Apollo]

Just fast forwarded through the past 2 episodes of NRL 360 and today’s episode of NRL tonight. Everyone ripped into Annesley and the refs. Even the mild mannered Tim Mannah. Except Cooper Cronk. He said the Newcastle players “were in front of the kicker and moved forward”.

Brent Read said he asked Annesley about the Kennedy offside and Annesley replied”there is a chance Will Kennedy is offside in that play”. A chance. Seriously. Reminds me of the story about the printer that wouldn’t print because it was out of ink. A 3 month investigation came to the conclusion that it was possible that the printer was out of ink. Bureaucracy at it’s finest.

BTW , does Crawley pay for his Botox injections or does Foxtel pick up the tab ?

The video in this article is Annesley's explanation of the two field goal situations -

'Obstruction, blockers, case closed'

NRL Head of Football Elite Competitions Graham Annesley looks at the use of blockers on field goals during the Round 24 clash between the Sharks and the Knights

www.nrl.com

 

[snickers007]

Haha, what a bozo that guy is. His magnificent idea for golden point was the winner gets 2 points and the loser gets 1 point. So somehow the 2 points on offer becomes 3 points. f**k me dead these guys wouldn't know their head from their arse.

.

I've just run some calculations for 2020-2023 seasons.

If the above was the implemented we have the following outcomes:

2020: No changes to Top 8 teams or their final places
2021: Raiders finish 8th instead of the Titans. Face Roosters in Sydney week 1 of finals. Roosters put 40 on Raiders twice in 2021, including the final round in CBR.
2022: Storm and Roosters trade places (5 & 6). Both teams lost week 1 of finals anyway
2023: Broncos finish 1st instead of 2nd. Panthers forced to wear pink in the GF

So, bugger all changes in the grand scheme of things.