The officiating in the australia vs England match.

[AuckMel]

Very, very poor.

The English Rugby league must unite with the NZRFL and take control of this situation.

 

[adamkungl]

Do you mean Lewis' second try?

Tate's try was fine going by the current interpretations. The interpretation though is bit of a joke.

By the current NRL interpretations...not international (i think)

 

[Big Pete]

Would be interesting to see if they're different.

Apart from the corner post, two refs and interchanges I think every rule is the same.

 

[hellteam]

Reffing was a joke. If you can't see that Cronk touched that ball, honestly, wow, the ball was going up, it hit his hand, and then it went down.

Tate f*ckin bounced it, he let it go.

Refs are a joke, and honestly, rugby league is turning into a joke.

 

[innsaneink]

Would be interesting to see if they're different.

Apart from the corner post, two refs and interchanges I think every rule is the same.

Packin the scrum to get time called off....once its called off the forwards dont have to stay bound...time still off.
Cummins yesterday didnt call time off for a PNG attack scrum though later he did for the Kiwis

 

[Billythekid]

Do you mean Lewis' second try?

Tate's try was fine going by the current interpretations. The interpretation though is bit of a joke.

I think blaming the ref. is trying to disguise how s**t the Poms were.

I agree though, a neutral ref. should be used. Mind you, make sure the ref. is up to standard. Some of the 'neutral' refs I've seen have no idea when it comes to officiating a game of this calibre.

England were well on top after there penalty goal. Australia had that terrible set where they made no metres and had Gallen do a poor kick.

The refs then missed a blatant strip and than gave a try which shouldn't have been given which reuined all their momentum.

Besides that there were at least 2 other tries which should have been disallowed.

I'm not saying England were good. Burgess should have plaed 80 minutes (in fact whenever he was on England looked a different side), Tomkins should of been in the halves, Widdop should have been fullback and their wingers/centres need to open their eyes.

England were still denied an oppurtunity to compete in that match. They were always going to struggke but having that many calls go against them turned what should of been a close match into a blowout.

 

[Big Pete]

The refs then missed a blatant strip and than gave a try which shouldn't have been given which reuined all their momentum.

Was that the tackle on Briscoe? In which case I disagree.

Try was fine too, BotD at worse.

 

[The 18th Man]

As per the RLIF website, page 5 of their rule book:

Grounding the ball means:

a) Placing the ball on the ground with hand or hands or

b) exerting a downward pressure on the ball with hand or arm, the ball itself being on the ground or

c) dropping the ball and covering it with the part of the body above the waist and below the neck, the ball itself being on the ground.

This document is listed under 'Key Documents' dated 3rd August 2010. I assume it's current.

I also believe that England, well it's my interpretation of the RLIF rulebook, had every right to put Smith on his arse.

 

[S.S.T.I.D]

England more than likely would of still lost, lets not kid ourselves. But Archer was diabolical.

 

[LeagueXIII]

Refereeing was absolute rubbish.

I am sick of Australian whinging towards refs when our refs are just as bad. Are there no forward passes anymore????

Seriously it's as though they have no regard for the rules so the speed of the game is not affected. What about credibility.

Australian rugby league is run by idoits who have no concept of how to develop the sport.

 

[Springs]

Was that the tackle on Briscoe? In which case I disagree.

Try was fine too, BotD at worse.

Briscoe was ruled to have dropped it yet Myles clearly stripped it out. CLEARLY.
Atkins was ruled to have tackled Tate without the ball when he had his fingernails on Tate's neck brace. For some reason it was a penalty but not a penalty try even though it should have been England 20 metre restart. Australia scored off these two ridiculous decisions.
I thought Cronk touched the ball and it went forward. I can understand that try though.
Tate... that was monkey testicles. He most likely put his foot on the line and most likely bounced the ball. The ball does not bounce that high if downward force is applied when it is on the ground. No way was it a try.

 

[no name]

England more than likely would of still lost, lets not kid ourselves. But Archer was diabolical.

Exactly. The quality of the England side is no excuse for paid officials to make as many errors as they did. Harridan (was he video ref?) has to go, consistently giving dud calls when given the chance to watch incidents a number of times.

 

[miguel de cervantes]

England more than likely would of still lost, lets not kid ourselves. But Archer was diabolical.

Probably, but:

(a) It is easy to underestimate the psychological influence these things have on a team

(b) International league needs good games, and here we have a good game that was just completely ruined by sub-standard refereeing. It's the classic, time-old rugby league shooting itself in the footsies....again.

 

[Big Pete]

Briscoe was ruled to have dropped it yet Myles clearly stripped it out. CLEARLY.

I thought he just dropped it cold. Might have to check this again.

Atkins was ruled to have tackled Tate without the ball when he had his fingernails on Tate's neck brace. For some reason it was a penalty but not a penalty try even though it should have been England 20 metre restart. Australia scored off these two ridiculous decisions.

Doesn't matter, if you interfere with a player getting the ball it's a penalty any day of the week.

Tate... that was monkey testicles. He most likely put his foot on the line and most likely bounced the ball. The ball does not bounce that high if downward force is applied when it is on the ground. No way was it a try.

I agree that it shouldn't be a try but under the current rules and interpretations it is.

 

[the_flight_of_the_magpie]

Am I wrong in thinking that the Refs in 4 Nations matches are supposed to be neutral Refs?

 

[Springs]

I thought he just dropped it cold. Might have to check this again.



Doesn't matter, if you interfere with a player getting the ball it's a penalty any day of the week.



I agree that it shouldn't be a try but under the current rules and interpretations it is.

Well how about they just use common sense for once, they know if they rule no try no one will blow up, I thought they would have learnt that after the Gasnier try.

 

[Big Pete]

The Gasnier try was a lot different from the Tate one.

I'm trying to think of a similar try...Barrett Origin 2 2001 comes to mind.

 

[Billythekid]

I thought he just dropped it cold. Might have to check this again.

Nate Myles just grabbed the ball and ripped it out. It was shown clearly in the replay.

 

[Big Pete]

Will have to see the Game Analyser.

 

[Springs]

No I meant that the Gasnier try showed what the Ref's attitude to the Benefit of the Doubt and Seperation rules are. That even if there is 1% doubt they still give Benefit of the Doubt. In the Tate try he MOST LIKELY didn't score, the views of most people that I have seen reflect that. Yet they still put up TRY. It's just ridiculous. No one would care if it was ruled No Try.