Refereeing was appalling

[ozenzud]

I was at the game and I've watched it again last night. I was sort of satisfied there were a few gaffs that seemed to favour Manly, but all in all it was OK.

After watching on tv and being able to do the slow mo replays I'd say, off the top of my head the contentious decisions are as follows:

Maloney's knock on - 50/50 - Manly's favour
George Rose penalty - Should have gone for 10. Manly's favour
Forward pass to Hopoate (looked at this carefully, it WAS forward but only half metre) could have been let go so lets give it 50/50 to be generous. Warriors favour.
Shaun Johnston taken out on kick - 50/50 - Manly's favour
Mateo's "dropped" ball - 50/50 if generous. It was a blatant strip - Manly's favour
Watmough PTB - blantent ref error - Manly's favour
Rapira strip of Matai 50/50 - Warriors favour
Shaun Johnston interferred with on kick chase by Cherry evans 50/50 - Manly's favour.
Shepard ruling leading up to the try - 80/20 in favour of Warriors - ruling Manly.

So in the first half, we have 9 contentious rulings. 7 in favour of Manly and 2 in favour of the Warriors. League is about momentum. We couldn't get any because of these decisions.

I was OK with the loss leaving the ground, but I started to get really angry when I was able to properly review all the decisions. I say the warriors were unlucky and not substantially outplayed.

 

[firechild]

Shepard ruling leading up to the try - 80/20 in favour of Warriors - ruling Manly.

Again, how is this at all contentious when the rulebook CLEARLY covers this scenario and there should have been no penalty.

 

[ozenzud]

You are of course kidding? The rulebook says players are allowed to block a player attempting to make a tackle? Haven't seen that one.

 

[firechild]

You are of course kidding? The rulebook says players are allowed to block a player attempting to make a tackle? Haven't seen that one.

You only need to go back 1 page to find it but I'll save you the trouble:

In regards to a player on the attacking side not in possession (s15 p39 of 2010 Laws):
He must give ‘right of way’ to opponents who are running across in front of him to tackle player 5 (player in possession) but is not guilty of obstructing opponents who are coming from behind him.

 

[Brutus]

I still can't get over the Watmong play-the-ball.

What were those stupid refs looking at?

Such a crucial non-decision in the game.

 

[2010Dragons]

You only need to go back 1 page to find it but I'll save you the trouble:

firechild, you are wrong here mate....have a look at the replay( I did) the warriors player is running in from the left side of the runnig manly player NOT from BEHIND the manly player when cherry evens blocks the warriors player path....Harrigan has just admitted on the radio!!!

Look Manly won the game, good for them but was it fair and square...NO!

Such is life.

 

[firechild]

Cherry-Evans was never in front of Robertson so therefore either the defender came from behind or he was not obstructed (which is clearly not the case).

I just had another look at the footage. While the defender was not initially behind Robertson, he did actually fall behind and he was coming in from an angle past horizontal. The point is (and no doubt the reason the rule was worded as it is) attacking players can't be expected to ensure that defenders can come from any angle to make a tackle. Otherwise support players unknowingly become obstructions.

 

[DJShaksta]

Cherry-Evans was never in front of Robertson so therefore either the defender came from behind or he was not obstructed (which is clearly not the case).

I just had another look at the footage. While the defender was not initially behind Robertson, he did actually fall behind and he was coming in from an angle past horizontal. The point is (and no doubt the reason the rule was worded as it is) attacking players can't be expected to ensure that defenders can come from any angle to make a tackle. Otherwise support players unknowingly become obstructions.

Referees boss Bill Harrigan disagrees with you

 

[Perth Red]

I think the fact refs didn;t even got to replay for it is probably the bigger issue, either they missed it all together or they decided it was clear cut, which it clearly wasn't. Either way the ref team got it wrong and should have taken another look at it.

No question Manly got the rub of the refs green, but that's the way the ball bounces sometimes. Can;t argue they were the better team on the day so I don;t feel that the Warriors were robbed.

 

[Hutty1986]

I never really got the Manly hate really. Brett Stewarts actions after the GF were pathetic but that's about it.

 

[jabroni]

I think the fact refs didn;t even got to replay for it is probably the bigger issue, either they missed it all together or they decided it was clear cut, which it clearly wasn't. Either way the ref team got it wrong and should have taken another look at it.

No question Manly got the rub of the refs green, but that's the way the ball bounces sometimes. Can;t argue they were the better team on the day so I don;t feel that the Warriors were robbed.

Tackle had been completed, the video ref can't go back to it.

The ruling seem blurry, it covers someone from behind being unable to be obstructed, but surely in the spirit of the decision, someone making a covering tackle from beside the the attacker would be classed in the same field. Is a support player simply meant to get out of the way and not support the player making the break, or do they simply maintain their line. It looked like DCE was maintaining his line and Robertson stepped into him, hindering all three players in that instance.

 

[firechild]

Tackle had been completed, the video ref can't go back to it.

The ruling seem blurry, it covers someone from behind being unable to be obstructed, but surely in the spirit of the decision, someone making a covering tackle from beside the the attacker would be classed in the same field. Is a support player simply meant to get out of the way and not support the player making the break, or do they simply maintain their line. It looked like DCE was maintaining his line and Robertson stepped into him, hindering all three players in that instance.

Spot on. Support players can't just disappear or stop supporting on the chance that a defender will come in on the same angle.

 

[firechild]

Referees boss Bill Harrigan disagrees with you

It's funny, everyone thinks Harrigan is a merkin but are happy to side with him if he makes a claim against an advatntage Manly have gained. Even if the refs did get it wrong, which I still dispute, this can go towards the many times Harrigan has apologised to Manly for crucial decisions going against us throughout the year.

 

[RL1908]

The suggestion that an on-side support player running "at the hip" of a ball-carrier owes any obligation to a defender does not accord with most people's understanding of how RL is played - not now, not ever.

The obstruction laws have their basis in the on-side/off-side principles. On-side players can't get about deliberately knocking over defenders, but nor do they, when supporting a team mate in case he has to pass the ball, have to move aside to relieve any obstruction of defenders.

This current debate echoes the tangled obstruction mess the game got into in 2009 re the Bulldogs "no try" call v Dragons (after Soward came into contact with an on-side Greg Eastwood).

A change was also made before this season kicked-off to be less stringent on obstructions. The latter is not relevant to the GF incident, but is symptomatic of a wider lack of agreement/understanding across the game (which should also include commentators and fans) of just what makes for lawful and unlawful obstruction.

The Parramatta wedge of 1976 was outlawed, but there's nothing imo to stop it if the players don't bind to each other, so long as they don't get in front of the ball-carrier or push him along.

 

[kay]

Heremeia is ahead of Robertson throughout, until MR breaks a tackle and does a right foot step whereby Heremeia gets ready to make the tackle as he heads his way, (but the rule above speaks about the player not in possession, DCE, Heremeia is never behind DCE), this is where DCE knows they will run illegal lines and tries to stop, as he can no longer receive a legal pass, he doesnt stop quick enough, since MR didnt pass him the ball, and he has continued his run, he now obstructs robertsons run not to mention heremeias tackle. It may not be deliberate but it's still obstruction.
The thing is if Robertson passes the ball to DCE, Heremeia would be right in front to stop him

 

[Spot On]

I was at the game and I've watched it again last night. I was sort of satisfied there were a few gaffs that seemed to favour Manly, but all in all it was OK.

After watching on tv and being able to do the slow mo replays I'd say, off the top of my head the contentious decisions are as follows:

Maloney's knock on - 50/50 - Manly's favour
George Rose penalty - Should have gone for 10. Manly's favour
Forward pass to Hopoate (looked at this carefully, it WAS forward but only half metre) could have been let go so lets give it 50/50 to be generous. Warriors favour.
Shaun Johnston taken out on kick - 50/50 - Manly's favour
Mateo's "dropped" ball - 50/50 if generous. It was a blatant strip - Manly's favour
Watmough PTB - blantent ref error - Manly's favour
Rapira strip of Matai 50/50 - Warriors favour
Shaun Johnston interferred with on kick chase by Cherry evans 50/50 - Manly's favour.
Shepard ruling leading up to the try - 80/20 in favour of Warriors - ruling Manly.

So in the first half, we have 9 contentious rulings. 7 in favour of Manly and 2 in favour of the Warriors. League is about momentum. We couldn't get any because of these decisions.

I was OK with the loss leaving the ground, but I started to get really angry when I was able to properly review all the decisions. I say the warriors were unlucky and not substantially outplayed.

Geez mate, you've taken the loss well. I don't support either club but at half time the group I was with all agreed that Manly were gifted two penalties that led to to two tries soon after and basically got the rub of the green throughout the first forty. I don't think anyone, except the one eyed Manly supporter could disagree with your summation. The refs had a shocker and basically it was game over at half time. Disappointing from where I sat. I was hoping for much better. Congrats on your attitude though.