Ref Watch 2014 (aka the Skeepe Thread)

[bileduct]

If Snowden received 7 weeks for standing there

Get real.

 

[bileduct]

Oh, of course.

Yes, very funny!

Ha ha!

 

[firechild]

The greater advantage in last night's game was to award to try. A referee cant penalise the same infringement twice and the only way Reynolds would be dismissed was for a send off offence, which this wasn't.

But the player wasn't penalised at all. If he was binned, he would have been penalised once. I'm not sure how you figure he would have been penalised twice.

I see your point, but as the rules stand (as per the referee guidelines) a player can't be sin binned while you award a penalty try. Has to be a send off or no action on the offender

That was what I said in my first post. However, the try last night was NOT a penalty try.

 

[BigSteveo]

But the player wasn't penalised at all. If he was binned, he would have been penalised once. I'm not sure how you figure he would have been penalised twice.

Yes correct. The player was not penalised because the referee allowed the advantage, in which a try is scored. Not an official penalty, but a penalty nonetheless. When you think of it, isn't been scored against a penalty of bad defence?

Had Reynolds been given 10, he would have been "penalised" twice for the same infringement.

That was what I said in my first post. However, the try last night was NOT a penalty try.

Correct. Nor was a professional foul as a try was not prevented in that play.

 

[Timmah]

SBW's been charged for the Burgess one... 3 weeks early plea (4 if fought and failed).

Minichiello (knee raise) and Walker (tripping) also charged by 0 weeks early plea.

 

[no name]

Yes correct. The player was not penalised because the referee allowed the advantage, in which a try is scored. Not an official penalty, but a penalty nonetheless. When you think of it, isn't been scored against a penalty of bad defence?

Had Reynolds been given 10, he would have been "penalised" twice for the same infringement.



Correct. Nor was a professional foul as a try was not prevented in that play.

A try to Topou was prevented. Topou was taken out, which was the professional foul.
Just because Jennings scored doesn't mean there wasn't a professional foul.

As for your first point, in an 8 point try, the offending player gets 'penalised' twice for an infringement.

 

[Timmah]

Had Reynolds been given 10, he would have been "penalised" twice for the same infringement.

I take your points but can't agree with this. Reynolds wasn't individually penalised for his actions. His team was by letting in the try but he's still committed an act of foul play that should see any player be binned.

 

[no name]

SBW's been charged for the Burgess one... 3 weeks early plea (4 if fought and failed).

Minichiello (knee raise) and Walker (tripping) also charged by 0 weeks early plea.

First the merkin only gets 52 on supercoach, then he gets himself suspended for 3 weeks.
f**k off to Union already!

 

[eozsmiles]

It's only a professional foul if the foul prevented a try scoring situation. Since a try was scored in the same play it is no longer a professional foul, so the sin bin does not apply. Referee took the advantage.

Had Reynolds did something like knock the attacking player out with an elbow or something as serious then it would be subject to further disaplinary action.

Every play of the game is a try scoring situation.

It was a pro foul because he deliberately denied an opponent the chance to gather the ball by making no effort to follow the rules. There was no accidental foul or incidental contact - he cynically tackled a player without the ball in a calculated effort. He knew he was breaking the rules and did it anyway to gain his team an advantage.

In other words, he completely ignored the rules and abandoned any spirit of the game in order to prevent an opponent from playing fairly.

That is absolutely a professional foul.

 

[BigSteveo]

A try to Topou was prevented. Topou was taken out, which was the professional foul.
Just because Jennings scored doesn't mean there wasn't a professional foul.

I am not debating the fact that Topou was taken out. That?s a clear cut penalty ? however.

The advantage to the non-offending team must be readily obvious if the Referee is to allow play to proceed. Allowing play to proceed does not mean that the offending player cannot subsequently be disciplined. ? Section 13 (Advantage)

Pretty obvious what the advantage was.

Power to dismiss: In the event of misconduct by a player, the Referee shall, at his discretion, caution, temporarily suspend for ten minutes, or dismiss the offender. Section 16 (6)

Cummins decided, at his discretion, to not temporary dismiss Reynolds. Note the rule above where it says ?Allowing play to proceed does not mean that the offending player cannot subsequently be disciplined.?
It does not mention that the player has to be disciplined either. The rule is there, but the NRL has the ability to interpret the law in whatever way they choose.

In saying that, Reynolds was disciplined via a talk by the referee.

The Referee (or Video referee) may award a penalty try if, in his opinion, a try would have been scored but for the unfair play of the defending team. A penalty try is awarded between the goal posts irrespective of where the offence occurred.? Section 6 (3) (d)

It can?t have been a penalty try as even so an offence occurred, a try was scored in the same play.

Think of it this way, if after Jennings scored the referee pulled it up and played the penalty and sin binned Reynolds, as per professional foul rules. Roosters had been denied a try. Now if after the set after the penalty the Roosters fail to score against 12 men, but instead Inglis intercepts and runs away for a 100m try, that's a 12 point turnaround. completely ruins the Roosters advantage and possibly costs them the game.

Imagine the uproar.

The referee made the correct call. I am certain of that. If however I am proven wrong I will buy a referee's hat and eat it with no condiments.

As for your first point, in an 8 point try, the offending player gets 'penalised' twice for an infringement.

Incorrect.

"If a player fouls an opponent who is touching down for a try, a penalty kick at goal shall be taken from in front of the goal posts after the attempt to convert the try. After his kick has been taken the ball shall be deemed dead and play shall be re-started from the halfway line. This law applies to the period during which the ball is touched down for a try and not to any subsequent period - Section 13 (9)"

Player is penalised once.

 

[eozsmiles]

I take your points but can't agree with this. Reynolds wasn't individually penalised for his actions. His team was by letting in the try but he's still committed an act of foul play that should see any player be binned.

Souths weren't penalised by the points, the points came because the roosters capitalised on an opportunity despite the professional foul.

This is what I don't get about the "can't punish them twice" theory. Letting in points isn't a penalty or punishment. It's ineptitude by the defence or good play from the attack.

Souths were not penalised for the pro foul of Reynolds in any way and that is ridiculous. Had Reynolds followed the rules, the roosters score. He broke the rules and the roosters scored.

Where is the penalty?

Maybe a good rule in this case might be to give two shots at goal. Obviously not a penalty try, because they already scored. But there should be a deterrent and 2 points would be something.

What if Tupou hurt his knee/ankle and left the field? Reynolds cheats and gets no penalty while the roosters lose a player because of deliberate cheating?

Senseless.......

 

[ellskimore]

I think Reynolds should have been sinbinned regardless of whether the try was scored or not.

 

[carcharias]

Yep
Sin bin
The rules need changing.

 

[Usain Bolt]

Skeepe has already started in the Dogs/Broncos game thread. Quality stuff for round 1, thought he'd ease into the ref bashing this year.

 

[Big LIMA]

I hear Skeepe was very impressive in the offseason. Not surprised to see him start the year in such sensational form.

 

[El Diablo]

Classic shepherd.

That's a bad decision, and one not backed up by the laws of the game.

The fact that the defenders had to decide between two players to cover is enough of an impediment to disallow the try.

The decision is wrong according to the laws of the game.

 

[no name]

I am not debating the fact that Topou was taken out. That?s a clear cut penalty ? however.

Pretty obvious what the advantage was.



Cummins decided, at his discretion, to not temporary dismiss Reynolds. Note the rule above where it says ?Allowing play to proceed does not mean that the offending player cannot subsequently be disciplined.?
It does not mention that the player has to be disciplined either. The rule is there, but the NRL has the ability to interpret the law in whatever way they choose.

In saying that, Reynolds was disciplined via a talk by the referee.



It can?t have been a penalty try as even so an offence occurred, a try was scored in the same play.

Think of it this way, if after Jennings scored the referee pulled it up and played the penalty and sin binned Reynolds, as per professional foul rules. Roosters had been denied a try. Now if after the set after the penalty the Roosters fail to score against 12 men, but instead Inglis intercepts and runs away for a 100m try, that's a 12 point turnaround. completely ruins the Roosters advantage and possibly costs them the game.

Imagine the uproar.

The referee made the correct call. I am certain of that. If however I am proven wrong I will buy a referee's hat and eat it with no condiments.



Incorrect.

"If a player fouls an opponent who is touching down for a try, a penalty kick at goal shall be taken from in front of the goal posts after the attempt to convert the try. After his kick has been taken the ball shall be deemed dead and play shall be re-started from the halfway line. This law applies to the period during which the ball is touched down for a try and not to any subsequent period - Section 13 (9)"

Player is penalised once.

What the f**k are you on about?????
You are shifting the goalposts on every argument you make.

Reynolds is disciplined by the ref talking to him??? Really harsh penalty.

Why can't the ref bin Reynolds and still call a try?

And then you say in an 8 point try the offender is only 'penalised' once yet the try is given (your example of a 'penalty') and then the scoring team has an extra shot at goal (quite obviously a second 'penalty')


Enjoy your ass hat, without the condiments.

 

[Y2Eel]

A try to Topou was prevented. Topou was taken out, which was the professional foul.
Just because Jennings scored doesn't mean there wasn't a professional foul.

As for your first point, in an 8 point try, the offending player gets 'penalised' twice for an infringement.

Did what Reynolds do prevent a try to the Roosters?

 

[no name]

Did what Reynolds do prevent a try to the Roosters?

Yes, it prevented Topou, a Roosters player, from scoring a try.

 

[Y2Eel]

Yes, it prevented Topou, a Roosters player, from scoring a try.

So the Roosters didnt score of that play?

TRY SYDNEY ROOSTERS
Scored by Michael Jennings. Kick to come.
Michael Jennings has dived in off a final kick ahead from Daniel Tupou as he danced down the sideline to soccer the ball downfield. The Roosters against the run of play opened the scoring under the posts.

Seems they did...