Refereeing Transparency & Consistency

[Dragons 09]

Don’t let the truth get in the way of a good ref conspiracy..

I know right.....i forget where i am sometimes.

 

[redandwhite4evr]

At the end of the day..the game was there for the taking....we just didn't get it done....all teams get bad decisions...the top sides rise above it....unfortunately that excludes us .

Yes- and a skill error under pressure from our $850K playmaker Norman ultimately decided our fate. If his bomb for Saab had been a metre further from the dead ball line, we may have had the win.

But that's been the story for Corey all season- imprecise kicking, drifting in and out of games, dodgy defence and a lack of involvement and urgency. He's our Milford - ie overpaid and unlikely to be wanted by any other club.

 

[Lovemedragons]

Ok so wasn't a square up thanks.

It was a square up, to us. I know it made me feel better they were denied a fair try after been awarded a non try earlier.

 

[Dragon David]

I was going to start a "Bunker and Referee Decisions" thread but decided just to put this post on this one instead. It is to do with Phil Gould having a go at the Ref and Bunker regarding the elbow hit by Tino Fa’asuamaleaui on Reed Mahoney which sent Mahoney off for an HIA and Tino not getting penalised.

What gets me is the fact that as Gould runs the 100% Footy Show on Channel 9, he seems to be able to say things about the officials without being charged, like in the case of say Ricky Stuart blowing up and whinging in the press conference about the officials.

We know that Gould is the GM of Football at the Dogs but as he has this TV program he thinks that he can say anything which could bring the game in disrepute. I think he shouldn't be able to talk about the Bulldogs on his program. It gives them more of an advantage I think.

I know that our coaches hold their tongues back and not lash out to save being fined but if Gould can say things on his program why can't the coaches have some more to say about the officials?

‘Ruining the game’: Phil Gould launches fresh attack at NRL officiating after Bulldogs drama

‘Ruining the game’: Gould launches scathing attack at NRL officials after Dogs’ hip-drop drama

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[BLM01]

I was going to start a "Bunker and Referee Decisions" thread but decided just to put this post on this one instead. It is to do with Phil Gould having a go at the Ref and Bunker regarding the elbow hit by Tino Fa’asuamaleaui on Reed Mahoney which sent Mahoney off for an HIA and Tino not getting penalised.

What gets me is the fact that as Gould runs the 100% Footy Show on Channel 9, he seems to be able to say things about the officials without being charged, like in the case of say Ricky Stuart blowing up and whinging in the press conference about the officials.

We know that Gould is the GM of Football at the Dogs but as he has this TV program he thinks that he can say anything which could bring the game in disrepute. I think he shouldn't be able to talk about the Bulldogs on his program. It gives them more of an advantage I think.

I know that our coaches hold their tongues back and not lash out to save being fined but if Gould can say things on his program why can't the coaches have some more to say about the officials?

‘Ruining the game’: Phil Gould launches fresh attack at NRL officiating after Bulldogs drama

‘Ruining the game’: Gould launches scathing attack at NRL officials after Dogs’ hip-drop drama

www.foxsports.com.au

No what Gould said on 100% footy was exactly the voice I want and exactly what many diehard rugby league fans young and old are thinking
The NRL admin (under Annesley) bowing to the media and outraged whatever agendas have brought their own game into disrepute by not looking at the core of the problem but just applying surface bandaid after bandaid and have out confused themselves with what to do and what bandage to apply next
You see on forums like this it goes nowhere where you would like it to be intended towards

 

[Dragon David]

No what Gould said on 100% footy was exactly the voice I want and exactly what many diehard rugby league fans young and old are thinking
The NRL admin (under Annesley) bowing to the media and outraged whatever agendas have brought their own game into disrepute by not looking at the core of the problem but just applying surface bandaid after bandaid and have out confused themselves with what to do and what bandage to apply next
You see on forums like this it goes nowhere where you would like it to be intended towards

I understand BLM01, but me expressing my views on this Forum allows me to vent my displeasure at what I feel about how Gould can get away with it, that's all and I understand that him saying the things he has said would be what the ref and bunker officials should be copping. I realise that what I say won't go anywhere but I like to express my views like anyone else.

 

[Slippery Morris]

I really would love Gus to take over the Referee's Head Managers role (Annesley role) to fix the mess it is in. He would seriously make the right changes imo. He has been so vocal about it so let him get in there and fix it. If anyone understands how the game is played more it is him and he would help the people in charge officiate it better. Having a ex-ref is good but most have not played the game. Gus can educate them over a few years. Maybe even get Hasler seeing he is not doing anything. Just to educate the refs on the game and not just on the rules of the game.

 

[AyiosYiorgos]

I really would love Gus to take over the Referee's Head Managers role (Annesley role) to fix the mess it is in. He would seriously make the right changes imo. He has been so vocal about it so let him get in there and fix it. If anyone understands how the game is played more it is him and he would help the people in charge officiate it better. Having a ex-ref is good but most have not played the game. Gus can educate them over a few years. Maybe even get Hasler seeing he is not doing anything. Just to educate the refs on the game and not just on the rules of the game.

Knowing Gus, he will encourage refs to turn a blind eye on knock on's or forward passes because the passage of play was exhilarating and deserved a try..

 

[ruthless dragon]

The bad calls should not have cost us the game, I agree.

But the OP has a point. The "6 again" rule has become so arbitrary. It's intention was good, however refs can call 6 again whenever they want with no accountability.

We were never anywhere near in the race for the comp, but such calls need clarity. And like @RedV Resurgence said, the Dufty call was so fast, it makes the bunker obsolete.

Im not saying we would have won, in fact we had chances for players like Norman / Hunt and co, to win the game.

But they need to fix the bunker, and give some guidelines for the fans as to the 6 again rule.

Make it 8 tackles only

 

[BLM01]

I understand BLM01, but me expressing my views on this Forum allows me to vent my displeasure at what I feel about how Gould can get away with it, that's all and I understand that him saying the things he has said would be what the ref and bunker officials should be copping. I realise that what I say won't go anywhere but I like to express my views like anyone else.

I was not saying no you expressing your views as we all do. It is grant you vent here
But Gus has a voice that polarises people and at times he speaks for the average fan or punter and should not be silenced. Sometimes the right people may be listening who can make change.
Why? Because no one else with similar knowledge snd power in the game says it how it is where many are listening, where many others just providing just lip service to toe the NRL agenda line.

 

[Dragon David]

Here we are guys. Instead of posting ref and bunker stuff on the Rumours thread post them here and keep the Rumours as Rumours.

 

[FlickFlano]

you dont own me

 

[Dragon David]

you dont own me

I wouldn't want to!

 

[HenryTatana]

So Annesley has come out and said what DCE does with his drop outs (him standing in the field of play when he kicks it) is legal.
I call bullshit. Talk about manufacturing a reason.
Didn’t he , last year or the year beforein the game between the Cowboys and Tigers, when the atigers came back, say that the Cowboys should have been penalised as Kyle Feldt did the same except from a kick off and they won the game.

Does my head in.

 

[Dragon David]

So Annesley has come out and said what DCE does with his drop outs (him standing in the field of play when he kicks it) is legal.
I call bullshit. Talk about manufacturing a reason.
Didn’t he , last year or the year beforein the game between the Cowboys and Tigers, when the atigers came back, say that the Cowboys should have been penalised as Kyle Feldt did the same except from a kick off and they won the game.

Does my head in.

To me they manufacture answers to suit the occasion. Sometimes I wonder if all on field referees and refs going in the bunker are clear with all of the rules. Annesley has time and space to analyse contentious decisions made by either the refs or the bunker persons as per the example above and then he says something different in the other game as above so does he in fact know the rules?

The results of games in many cases over the years could have gone to either teams depending on how effective a referee is and if the official in the bunker station hasn't nodded off when looking over things a half dozen times because he had too much lunch that day.