The officiating in the australia vs England match.

[Sam_the_man]

On the Lewis try. You can clearly see that Cronk touches the ball due to it's rotational direction changing. On the second lewis try. I don't think Archer can be blamed for that 2 metre+ forward pass, his touch judge had a responcibility to see that it went forward so badely. Tates try....well even when i see these tries given in the NRL i don't like them. To my mind you need to have control of the ball for it to be a try. Under NRL rules there is a small chance that it would have been given but i'm 99% sure that under the IRLF rules the same BOTD does not exist.
Lunts try was no try any day of the week in any competition in the world. Short of the line is short of the line.
The facts remain that the officials in this match were terrible.

 

[Sam_the_man]

Given that even countries outside of the normal league world are mentioning the reffering from the Australia vs. England in Melbourne i think it's a good idea to poll and see what we think.

 

[Big Pete]

I'd like to get to the bottom of the interpretation of the 'no separation' interpretation and see if it exists in the International game. I was under the belief that unless otherwise stated the same interpretations of the NRL are used in IRL.

I do believe Cronk touched the ball too, but there wasn't enough conclusive evidence to suggest he did. What I don't know is whether or not he projected the ball forward.

I hate tries like the Brent Tate try, but as long as the interpretation exists it's going to be awarded.

I really hope the referee's review the rule book this year. I believe the majority of us are in agreement of what should constitute a try and what shouldn't. Also, this could be for another thread...but I truly believe benefit of the doubt should go towards the defensive side. To me, it's unfair to penalise a defensive team on a technicality.

 

[Joker's Wild]

For starters you have not created a poll for the thread and secondly, do we really need yet another thread for people to whinge about last Sunday

 

[gUt]

We get it.

 

[Sam_the_man]

For starters you have not created a poll for the thread and secondly, do we really need yet another thread for people to whinge about last Sunday

I was typing out the options.

 

[Sam_the_man]

I'd like to get to the bottom of the interpretation of the 'no separation' interpretation and see if it exists in the International game. I was under the belief that unless otherwise stated the same interpretations of the NRL are used in IRL.

I do believe Cronk touched the ball too, but there wasn't enough conclusive evidence to suggest he did. What I don't know is whether or not he projected the ball forward.

I hate tries like the Brent Tate try, but as long as the interpretation exists it's going to be awarded.

I really hope the referee's review the rule book this year. I believe the majority of us are in agreement of what should constitute a try and what shouldn't. Also, this could be for another thread...but I truly believe benefit of the doubt should go towards the defensive side. To me, it's unfair to penalise a defensive team on a technicality.

On your last paragraph Big Pete. I think the pendulum has swung to far in the attackers favour to the extent that we now see tries being awarded that wouldn't have been concidered in the past 100+ years. That pendulum needs to swing back toward the defending team because at the moment there is no encouragement for inspirational defensive play.

 

[deluded pom?]

Regardless of who you think SHOULD get BotD the fact remains that Clark was happy to award Australia a BotD "try" whilst denying England that option . Neither saw whether Lunt made the line or not and under those rules he gets BotD.

 

[adamkungl]

I'd like to get to the bottom of the interpretation of the 'no separation' interpretation and see if it exists in the International game. I was under the belief that unless otherwise stated the same interpretations of the NRL are used in IRL.

Why would the international rules change just because the reactionist morons, incompetent referees boss and self-interested coaches of the NRL decide to change the rules of our comp?

 

[Big Pete]

The side on angle showed the attempt of Lunt's was short. It's a fair point to raise, to ask why it wasn't given benefit of the doubt because of it coming up as ref's call but I believe Clarke only went back to Archer because he had a better view of it and when it comes to issues where the referee is right in front of it...the video ref. always seems to go back to the on field ref.

 

[Big Pete]

Why would the international rules change just because the reactionist morons, incompetent referees boss and self-interested coaches of the NRL decide to change the rules of our comp?

Because our competition has a fair amount of say in regards to how internationals are played.

These interpretations have been around for awhile as well...

and really this isn't the first time the 'no separation' rule has been used in an International match. So odds on, I'd say the interpretation is alive and well in the International game.

 

[roughyedspud]

whats telling is theres just as many aussies fighting in our corner against archer than aussies supporting archer....


also...in regards to brent tate's try.....the ball bounced off the ground and over his head..ffs...let alone his boot being intouch

 

[hutch]

whats telling is theres just as many aussies fighting in our corner against archer than aussies supporting archer....

yeah they were terrible. anybody who says otherwise is kidding themselves!

also...in regards to brent tate's try.....the ball bounced off the ground and over his head..ffs...let alone his boot being intouch

i dont think he was out, he knocked it on though!

 

[roughyedspud]

my 1st thought was he bounced it.....

my 2nd thought was yeah he bounced that....

my 3rd thought was...maybe his boot was in touch...but he defo bounced it anyway


i then threw a cushion at the cat....F**KIN TRY!!!! are you having a f**kin laugh!!!!!

lol....you've gotta laugh have'nt you

 

[SilverSteeler]

Australia were always going to win that game, even without the calls going their way. I am more disappointed with the inconsistentcy of the Video Refs than the actual refs on the field. Tate & Cronk both knocked it on, I cant see how how the Video refs get it wrong so many times, this needs a serious shakeup at International and NRL level.

I hope the next 3 games are not as bad.

 

[roughyedspud]

also why was'nt a english ref in the video booth with clarke??


was'nt that the case for the 4nations final last year?

 

[deluded pom?]

The side on angle showed the attempt of Lunt's was short. It's a fair point to raise, to ask why it wasn't given benefit of the doubt because of it coming up as ref's call but I believe Clarke only went back to Archer because he had a better view of it and when it comes to issues where the referee is right in front of it...the video ref. always seems to go back to the on field ref.

If it was that clear cut Pete then why didn't Clark see it that way instead of passing the buck back to Archer? If he sees what you saw and says no try then I'm happy to accept the decision. if neither he nor Archer saw the ball being grounded short then it's BotD. End of. None of the ref's call BS.

 

[Big Pete]

As I said just to be 100% sure, they always seem to do that with groundings. Isn't the first time in history it's happened.

 

[S.S.T.I.D]

whats telling is theres just as many aussies fighting in our corner against archer than aussies supporting archer....


also...in regards to brent tate's try.....the ball bounced off the ground and over his head..ffs...let alone his boot being intouch

As an Australian, albeit one that doesn't support the Kangaroos, it was embarrassing and in the interest of fair competition no one could suggest otherwise.

I have to be honest though, as soon as I saw the first replay of the Tate try I knew it was going to be awarded. As silly as it is, in rugby league in Australia in 2010, you don't need to have control of the ball to score a try. I'm not sure who we blame for that, but we get nonsense like that all the time in the NRL.

As I said before, I hope England dig their heels in in the future if Australia don't want to play under anything other than an NRL referee. They should just refuse to play. Hopefully it doesn't ever have to come to that and what happened on Sunday is the catalyst for a change in protocol.

 

[RedVee]

Regardless of who you think SHOULD get BotD the fact remains that Clark was happy to award Australia a BotD "try" whilst denying England that option . Neither saw whether Lunt made the line or not and under those rules he gets BotD.

Pom, I'm about 99% sure that the interpretation in the NRL is that if you can't actually see what happened you MUST send it back 'Refs Call'. Don't know about the Int rule though.

also why was'nt a english ref in the video booth with clarke??


was'nt that the case for the 4nations final last year?

Spud, good point. Bill Harrigant does some spots on radio in Sydney (I know!) and did mention before a couple of the Kiwi games the refs, touchies, and a couple of video refs.
From that i can only ASSUME that their were 2 refs in the video box and in Gus' typical NRL centric view, he only thought anyone would be interested in hearing about Clark..... note I don't have the facts, but that is what I deduce.