Vs Bulldogs rd4 2023

[SpaceMonkey]

Was he? That annoyed me, that moment. It wasn't necessary. It was 10 seconds to go, 4th tackle, we could've played the ball, spread and killed those seconds. I was shitting myself that we'd concede a penalty. I thought it was pretty typical Jazz toolery, although seems like no one agrees with me...so I'll go back in my box

Oh it was definitely typical Jazz toolery but Burton still fell for it like an idiot

 

[Meth]

Annesley basically said that both of the contentious calls were 50/50's. He said that he personally thought that the Johnson try was correct.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Annesley basically said that both of the contentious calls were 50/50's. He said that he personally thought that the Johnson try was correct.

Don't see what was 50/50 about the Kikau one unless it was whether Pompey was carrying it loosely. At least with Johnson's there was the fact that the try was 100% created by Johnson's deception and speed, AFB wasn't running a deliberate decoy, he just couldn't disappear.

 

[Beavers Headgear]

Lol I don’t know why Annesley bothers with these media sessions, if that AFB one is correct that contradicts 100 other sessions he has done over the last few years where he has said that’s a no try

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

The Johnson try is not a typical obstruction as there's no "block runner" or "second man play" involved, he's just dummied to his outside man and broken the line and the outside man has followed through in support.

However, if the support runner in a line break runs in front of the ball carrier and takes out a defender, that has to be an obstruction right? I figured the basis for the call had to be that AFB wasn't clearly in front of Johnson, however I am struggling to convince myself that he wasn't slightly in front when he ran into Mahoney. It would've been very unlucky because he was only momentarily in front of him, but I think he was.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Ok I just read Annesley's comments and he's dropped the "he can't just disappear" line in relation to AFB getting in front of Shaun, which to me is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the obstruction rule is supposed to be about, which is pretty concerning coming from the ref's boss.

 

[Benek]

I'm happy with that being no obstruction. He wasn't a dummy runner, he didn't get in front of the ball, SJ didn't run behind him at all, and he didn't really initiate contact - it was a defensive decision. Imagine how furious we'd be feeling right now if they had ruled it an obstruction and our game-winning try was taken away!

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

I'm happy with that being no obstruction. He wasn't a dummy runner, he didn't get in front of the ball, SJ didn't run behind him at all, and he didn't really initiate contact - it was a defensive decision. Imagine how furious we'd be feeling right now if they had ruled it an obstruction and our game-winning try was taken away!

If he doesn't get in front of the ball then 100% agree, and I thought that was the basis for the call. However Annesley himself has addressed the issue as if AFB did get in front of the ball and basically said "he got in the defender's way while in front but he can't just disappear so no worries". That seems....wrong.

 

[Philip_Smith007]

I've heard multiple references to Vailea's defence both here and in the main match thread, am I losing my mind or was it Montoya who got steamrolled for that try? I don't really remember Vailea missing a tackle yesterday yet he seems to be under scrutiny (contrast with Kosi and Montoya who came up with real clangers leading directly to tries).

I get it if the criticism is that Vailea left a 2 on 1 overlap but that seems a bit of an obtuse thing to focus on when Montoya would've shut down the move had he not got absolutely rolled.

Watching it back, Bunty has Bulldogs 7 moving out, Vailea has eyes for ball and no. 7, Vailea plants feet square for a split second (everyone else moving out) and Bulldogs 3 gets on his outside shoulder, and Vailea completely misses the tackle on 3 sliding off him. Montoya turns in hard after seeing Vailea miss and at speed to shut down ball carrier and bumps off in the tackle. CNK comes in to tackle 3 around his midsection who flicks it out the back to their winger to score.

The breakdown started from Vailea read of the play.
Not saying centre is easy to defend. But Flanagan got him interested and he missed his man, Montoya over cooked it trying to cover the mistake.

That's just how I read that play.

 

[Beavers Headgear]

If he doesn't get in front of the ball then 100% agree, and I thought that was the basis for the call. However Annesley himself has addressed the issue as if AFB did get in front of the ball and basically said "he got in the defender's way while in front but he can't just disappear so no worries". That seems....wrong.

The he can’t just disappear line is ridiculous, he shouldn’t be there in the first place and it is on him where he puts himself, not the defender

As you say if AFB is behind him, no issue, but he was in front of him and in a defenders path to get there, fairly clear cut for me

 

[Penrose Warrior]

The he can’t just disappear line is ridiculous, he shouldn’t be there in the first place and it is on him where he puts himself, not the defender

As you say if AFB is behind him, no issue, but he was in front of him and in a defenders path to get there, fairly clear cut for me

Was there any clarification on it by Annersley etc? Because I don't buy the 'can't disappear' line, either. By that token I can stand in the defensive line, impede tacklers with impunity. I can only imagine the justification was that he wasn't going to be able to make a play on SJ from the distance he had to go?

 

[Izz]

I don't really understand why this is such a contentious call. AFB wasn't a decoy runner, he was a support runner. He didn't suddenly change direction to take anybody out. He just kept running his line. His support line, not decoy line, which as a support runner he's fully entitled to do

 

[SpaceMonkey]

For what its worth I spoke to the retired NRL ref I work with (Steve Lyons) about it and he thought it was a good call on the SJ try- and he also thought Kikau clearly stripped Pompey.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

I can only imagine the justification was that he wasn't going to be able to make a play on SJ from the distance he had to go?

Mahoney admitted as much, said there was no way he would've got near Johnson in any case

 

[Beavers Headgear]

I don't really understand why this is such a contentious call. AFB wasn't a decoy runner, he was a support runner. He didn't suddenly change direction to take anybody out. He just kept running his line. His support line, not decoy line, which as a support runner he's fully entitled to do

I think it is because that when he got in front of Shaun, he no longer became a support runner, and contact was made with the defender while he was still in front

 

[SpaceMonkey]

I think it is because that when he got in front of Shaun, he no longer became a support runner, and contact was made with the defender while he was still in front

Was that only because SJs sidestep and change of direction meant AFB overran him at that point though? AFBs intent was still to be a support runner, SJ just fooled everyone

 

[Blair]

Was that only because SJs sidestep and change of direction meant AFB overran him at that point though? AFBs intent was still to be a support runner, SJ just fooled everyone

Yeah, if it was no try what would the precedent there be, a player, like Johnson, who can jink, jive and turn like the wind, suddenly puts the support player offside?

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Yeah, if it was no try what would the precedent there be, a player, like Johnson, who can jink, jive and turn like the wind, suddenly puts the support player offside?

That’s it, it would actually penalise that kind of play and nobody wants that

 

[Beavers Headgear]

Yeah, if it was no try what would the precedent there be, a player, like Johnson, who can jink, jive and turn like the wind, suddenly puts the support player offside?

I guess the precedent would be that you can’t run in front of your player and interfere

 

[Beavers Headgear]

Was that only because SJs sidestep and change of direction meant AFB overran him at that point though? AFBs intent was still to be a support runner, SJ just fooled everyone

It probably was, might have to look at the video again, just saw a still shot of Addin ahead of him, no decoy or support runner ever intends to make contact with the defender though

remember how simple this rule was 25 years ago lol,they’ve really made a mess of it, and the ball players these days lack the passing skill of the old blokes