Bulldogs pip Wests Tigers in golden point
Related coverage
A Krisnan Inu field goal with less than a minute remaining in extra time handed Canterbury a controversial 23-22 victory over Wests Tigers at ANZ Stadium on Friday night.
Inu calmly slotted the point from about 30 metres out as the Bulldogs tightened their grip on the NRL minor premiership with their 12th consecutive win.
But the game, played in front of 29,194 fans, was marred by a video refereeing decision by Sean Hampstead, who awarded a 74th minute try to Bulldogs winger Jonathan Wright.
The lanky flyer dived over in the left corner after Frank Pritchard ran behind Josh Morris who appeared to have impeded Tigers centre Blake Ayshford.
Tigers captain Robbie Farah exploded after the decision was made.
“Since the day rugby league was created you cannot run behind a player … it’s a shepherd,” Farah told the referees.
The Tigers did a great job to stay in the contest with prop Aaron Woods’ converted try in the 78th minute locking the scores at 22-22.
Canterbury went into the halftime break with a 12-6 lead after two brilliant long-range tries to Aiden Tolman and Josh Reynolds.
The joint venture pegged a try back just before the break, to winger Marika Koroibete, before a sensational opening to the second half resulted in the Fijian flyer scoring his second try on 45 minutes.
Soon after, Reynolds put Inu through a hole down the right edge before the centre linked with Ben Barba who scored on 55 minutes with Inu converting to make it 18-10.
The Tigers had raid after raid repelled by the Bulldogs before Blake Ayshford produced a nice inside ball to send Marshall over for a converted try to make it 18-16 but they lost momentum when Tim Moltzen dropped the re-start.
© AAP 2013Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
- Explore:
- Canterbury Bulldogs, Krisnan Inu, NRL, Rugby League, Wests Tigers
August 18th 2012 @ 6:47am
solly said | August 18th 2012 @ 6:47am | Report comment
As a Bulldogs fan, I guess I should say that I am glad that they won but honestly, refereeing aside, that game should have ended after 80 minutes as a draw.
August 18th 2012 @ 6:57am
Mals said | August 18th 2012 @ 6:57am | Report comment
It would be good to see the Bulldogs obstruction play refereeing “luck” change during the finals but I won’t hold my breath. Hard luck Tigers!
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
August 18th 2012 @ 10:02am
borza said | August 18th 2012 @ 10:02am | Report comment
You can’t play the whole competition then change the rules for the finals. I think “the obstruction try” was legit. There was no obstruction. Watch the vision and ask yourself which tigers defender is obstructed? if you say ashford… did he not move deliberately to take the dummy runner? if he had ignored the dummy runner he would have not been obstructed. Therefore i rule it a try. for the record i also wasn’t convinced woods grounded the ball in the tigers final try but i may have given it benifit of the doubt.
August 18th 2012 @ 4:15pm
adam said | August 18th 2012 @ 4:15pm | Report comment
Yes Ashford did take the dummy runner – but that was because there was no other outside attacker, apart from the winger who was wider out again and marked. But because Pritchard ran around behind him, it created the problem.
Joey explained it clearly during the call and it was obvious.
If that try is legit, I now have no idea what the obstruction rule is in the game for.
August 18th 2012 @ 10:37pm
Sylvester said | August 18th 2012 @ 10:37pm | Report comment
From a neutral, Aishford takes the dummy runner, yes, but he knows there’s enough defenders as long as Pritchard passes. However, Pritchard goes behind the runner and creates the extra man himself. Illegally.
August 19th 2012 @ 10:59pm
JayBob said | August 19th 2012 @ 10:59pm | Report comment
I love my Dogs and I see what you’re saying, but based on that theory it should be a No Try. Ayshford did make the wrong decisions but he should never have had to make that decision in the first place, that is why you are not allowed to run behind your own player, usually its black and white. Run behind your player, take advantage, penalty. It’s always been the same until the Hodges try in origin which has now confused everyone, even the refs.
I think the only reasoning the vid ref had to give it a Try was the fact that Fulton was already making the tackle when the ‘Shepherd” occurred. Whether or not Fulton pushed Morris behind Frank I dont know, but he had already made contact with the ball carrier before he went behind his own player. I don’t know the exact rules but can it be illegal to run behind your own player while being tackled?
Either way, I think it was very lucky to be awarded.
August 18th 2012 @ 7:05am
Roy em said | August 18th 2012 @ 7:05am | Report comment
The refereeing decisions made last night were an absolute disgrace! First disallowing a perfectly good put down by Robbie Farah and then allowing the Bulldogs try after a blatant Sheperd. The NRL should review and overturn this decision and at least award both teams each a point. The NRL has no credibility Zero! What a shame and absolute disgrace!
August 18th 2012 @ 7:12am
oikee said | August 18th 2012 @ 7:12am | Report comment
Golden point has to stay, the Tigers had every chance to win that game, if they are not skilled enough to kick a field goal, bad luck.
Watching draws every week will turn everyone into boring old men like Gus and Rabbits, and Sterlo.
I cant believe they carry on like that, all saying that stopping the game flat at a draw is exciting, it is not, it is boring, the fans want a winner, or loser.
The Broncos losing by a point is a great result to me. How they get this close is amazing.
Also the obstruction rule and that dreaded ball knocked out and going 10 metres forward, only to go to the video ref, mate,
talk about putting you faith into the pits of hell, going to the video ref, noooooo, help.
I will say it again, and the refs have themselves to blame as well, dont send a ball that has gone forward to the video ref, and the video ref should not even look at this,(like Gus said, what happens if he was tackled, it would have been play on) just have a scrum.
It is a ugly part of the game, the ball has gone forward, end of story, our game does not allow forward passes, or knock-ons, yet this is allowed to happen if they think a defender has knocked the ball out. Who cares, the ball has still gone forward after being knocked out, pull the play up and have a scrum.
The game then looks professional, even the women are calling out knock-on, scrum.
To have it over ruled by a video ref looks damm awful, a doggies breakfast.
August 18th 2012 @ 9:13am
Edward Kelly said | August 18th 2012 @ 9:13am | Report comment
I agree Oikee, the Nine commentary team seem to think they can use the broadcast to push their own agendas instead of actually calling the game, the rant on golden point was typical, yet they seem to have forgotten the empty feeling everyone got from draws and why golden point was introduced. I’d say the Fox Sports team are more in favour of golden point having probably called more through the years. Golden point rsults in a result, it could be tweeked but the fans love it and its only out of touch insular elites that want it scrapped.
The shepherd rule is another example of an insular NRL group (the refs) being out of touch with the players and fans. As Des hinted he is probably now coaching his players on how to use the shepherd to score tries.
August 18th 2012 @ 7:14am
steve b said | August 18th 2012 @ 7:14am | Report comment
It was a shepherd all day every day !
August 18th 2012 @ 7:25am
eagleJack said | August 18th 2012 @ 7:25am | Report comment
I love Dessie. The king of manipulation. Even after everything going for them he still managed to have a whinge about the refs in the post match conference.
But when asked about the obstruction try his response of “read the rulebook my friend… It’s good” was a disgrace
The game is officially in crisis with the refs. How that was a try last night yet the Watmough/Hall incident a couple of weeks back was penalised is beyond me. It is an absolute lottery once it goes upstairs.
August 18th 2012 @ 10:27am
Dogs Of War said | August 18th 2012 @ 10:27am | Report comment
Here is the video of the try (Starts at 3:18 I tried to make it start then, but the roar strips that out of the embedded video links).
Here is the rule.
OBSTRUCTION –
a) It is the responsibility of the decoy runner/s not to interfere with the defending team.
- Morris did not interfere with Ashford. Ashford committed himself to the decoy runner. This happens every game.
b) The ball runner cannot run behind his own team and gain an advantage.
- There was no advantage as NO player was stopped from getting to the ball. See a.
c) A sweep player may receive the ball on the inside of a block runner as long as there is depth on the pass to him. It there is no depth he needs to receive the ball on the outside of the block runner.
- N/A
d) Defensive decisions that commit defenders to decoy runners will not be considered obstruction.
- See point a.
e) Attacking players who loiter next to the play the ball can be interpreted as obstructing the defending team.
- N/A
f) In the process of scoring a try an attacking player dives through or into the legs of the player who has played the ball a penalty will be awarded to the defending team. This action will be interpreted as obstruction.
- N/A
g) If in the opinion of the referee/video referee the play had no effect on the scoring of the try the try will be awarded.
- TRY TIME! You also need to watch G. Ellis, he could have actually stopped this try, but he stopped shifting over, the lazy git!
August 18th 2012 @ 10:49am
Pete75 said | August 18th 2012 @ 10:49am | Report comment
Thanks for your input Des.
It’s interesting that the only person here who thinks it wasn’t a shepherd is also a Dogs supporter…
August 18th 2012 @ 10:53am
Dogs Of War said | August 18th 2012 @ 10:53am | Report comment
How about you refute the above ruling rather than throw out generalised statements that you think it shouldn’t be a try, and explain why it was obstruction. It can’t be that hard, cause using the rulebook I showed why it is a try.
August 18th 2012 @ 12:02pm
oikee said | August 18th 2012 @ 12:02pm | Report comment
Look, Ashford had to commit himself to the dummy Runner Morris, and by doing this the player with the ball can open up a space by passing the ball, not running behind the commited players. This is the whole idea of allowing the guy with the ball to pass.
If he then runs behind the player who has gone through, its a obstruction, the player (ashford has already allowed a open play, the guy with the ball can not get 2 cracks at it and run behind him.
This is why it is obvoius, a obstruction.
As soon as you go behind your own man you either pull up, hit the ground or keep going and be penilised, again, the rule is simple, rugby league makes it complicated.
August 18th 2012 @ 11:04am
soapit said | August 18th 2012 @ 11:04am | Report comment
so you dont think the defence having to make a decision who to hit gives the attack an advantage?
coaches should do away with decoy runners altogether in that case. theres no advantage to them.
August 18th 2012 @ 11:11am
Dogs Of War said | August 18th 2012 @ 11:11am | Report comment
Decoy plays happen 2 times a set of six at the very least. If it fools the defender (as happened in this case), then so be it. It’s up to the defender to read the play properly. The decoy player would not have touched the defender at all as he was running into space as you are supposed to if your a decoy runner, it was only Ashford that made contact with Morris.
Anyway, If you stopped decoy plays happening, Rugby League would be very boring. You would really only see lots of one up, dummy half running and sometimes the odd inside ball to mix things up.
August 18th 2012 @ 11:41am
soapit said | August 18th 2012 @ 11:41am | Report comment
so there is an advantage to using them? maybe sort out your argument before spending any more time typing long posts.
in any case i dont think that the intention of the use of the word advantage there. i think it means you cant get any further positive outcome after the incident occurs. if you run behind ur own player and give urself up and no ground is made then you’ve not gained any advantage after the incident occurred. having a player score a try is usually seen as an advantageous outcome to a play.
the part which they used to allow the try in that rule is part G. the ref deemed the decoy runner didnt impact on the play.
August 18th 2012 @ 12:37pm
Dogs Of War said | August 18th 2012 @ 12:37pm | Report comment
There is an advantage to having the ball. You can score tries once you have the ball.
It’s what Rugby League is about, creating an advantage, either by slight of hand, mismatches of attack vs defence. As I said, the advantage was created once the defender made a bad call and touched the decoy, and thus point D came into play. If he didn’t touch the decoy, points A and B would be enacted.
I think you need to realise in these situations, the referee looks at the rule book, and see’s what conditions have been satisfied. Once point D was satisfied, points A and B became null and void.
August 18th 2012 @ 1:54pm
soapit said | August 18th 2012 @ 1:54pm | Report comment
now we’re getting somewhere. yes the games about creating an advantage, but once you run behind your own man that rule says ur not allowed to continue to do so (which is why most players stop dead when they do it).
so at least we’ve agreed that there was an advantage from running the play. we can then move on to the items past point b which to be frank i’m not sure whether the ref got it wrong or not.
those points as written are given equal respect and one doesnt make another null and void. so the ref has to decide which to apply. not much help given to the ref as to which should take precedence (as none do as written). he decides what to apply in each case. doesnt do much for clarity of what you are and arent allowed to do.
this really needs to be cleaned up quick smart
August 18th 2012 @ 11:21am
Edward Kelly said | August 18th 2012 @ 11:21am | Report comment
So when the defence player loses sight of the ball runner that is not interfering or getting an advantage, this is amplified the nearer the ran around player is to the defence, in this case Morris was in Ashfords face. I think losing sight of the attacking player is a disadvantage! Points a and b apply above NO TRY.
August 18th 2012 @ 11:33am
Dogs Of War said | August 18th 2012 @ 11:33am | Report comment
Point D of the rule overides that. The defender had already stopped and committed himself to that course of action. Thus he was the one who put himself in the position to lose sight of attacking player. If he hadn’t put himself into a position that committed himself to tackling the decoy player, or the decoy player had touched him first, then I would agree. But that is not the case in this try.
A few teams are doing this play now. It requires precise route running, and an indepth knowledge of the rule, and if you can get that defender to commit to the dummy runner and touch him suggesting that is the course of action he is taking, then their is no problem.
August 18th 2012 @ 1:16pm
Edward Kelly said | August 18th 2012 @ 1:16pm | Report comment
Morris was not a decoy runner, he was run behind, there is a difference therefore point d is void, but yet again this involves nit picking to decide whether a defensive player went to the decoy or was just trying to see the ball player, way too open to interpretation. Make the rule simple, if a ball carrier runs behind one of their own players so that defensive players lose sight of him and an advantage is gained, it is a shepherd. The lawyers can work out the precise wording.
August 18th 2012 @ 1:40pm
Blaze said | August 18th 2012 @ 1:40pm | Report comment
Once Morris ran past Pritchard, and there was nobody else in the attacking line to the left of Pritchard except for the winger, and committed ashford, that is the point when barba isn’t allowed to run around both pritchard and morris and run through the gap created… That is gaining an advantage… Sure you can commit players in general play, but not through attacking players taking defensive players out of the play to open up a gap in the defense.. The only reason why the try was awarded was because the add on rule Harrigan included to protect referees.. The decision was utterly ridiculous, the only way it would have been clearer would be if Morris knocked ashford out. All this and the fact that farahs try was clearly the definition if benefit of the doubt if there ever was..
However the game is done and can’t be changed now. Here’s hoping it at very least, changes the rules to make them clearer so this doesn’t happen again… But it will no doubt.
August 18th 2012 @ 2:01pm
soapit said | August 18th 2012 @ 2:01pm | Report comment
see my post above mate, nothing over rides anything here. its a mess.
August 18th 2012 @ 4:21pm
adam said | August 18th 2012 @ 4:21pm | Report comment
WHAT?!
“The ball runner cannot run behind his own team and gain an advantage”.
Did the ball runner not create an advantage by running somehwere the defender did not think he could go and thus creating an overlap?! Of course he did. He ran out of room, ran behind his team mate – created an over lap. that is an advantage every day of the week.
August 18th 2012 @ 7:29am
mike from tari said | August 18th 2012 @ 7:29am | Report comment
What a great game, shame about the refs, Des might complain about the penalty count but they were lucky it was only seven. Tigers attacking first half pass the ball, dogs knock on play on from the ref, second half Inu all over Tigers winger who was trying to push him off, ref says tigers player holding him, refs cant see bullshit, Suprise, suprise, after a plethora of benefit of the doubt tries Farrers is not awarded, then the shepherd, was it or wasn’t it. I dont support either of these teams, but the doggies look like the entertainers of years ago, that team got away with more forward passes than Joe Montana & this team is doing the same.
August 18th 2012 @ 8:59am
Lost Earthling said | August 18th 2012 @ 8:59am | Report comment
This game had everything I love about league and everything I hate about league at the moment. First try to Bulldogs should not have been allowed as the bulldogs player/dummy-half interfered with the tacklers meaning there was no markers and an overlap. Tries that aren’t tries according to the video ref and moves that everyone can see is a blatant shepherd yet is allowed to become a try. Players who have been recruited halfway through the season to fill some weak spots playing a big part in a team becoming minor premiers. Maybe the answer is to give the video refs less decision making power since the guys on the field are doing the better job.
I just wish Ivan Cleary would complain more about the refs then maybe the mighty Panthers would have made the finals this year.
August 18th 2012 @ 9:56am
Worlds biggest said | August 18th 2012 @ 9:56am | Report comment
Tigers certainly didn’t get the rub of the green last night. That was 12 points the Tigers needed to claw ( excuse pun ) back which they did superbly. In saying that Farrah taking a rushed field goal right in front didn’t make sense on 3rd tackle. Benji is the go to man when you need a field goal, couldn’t believe they didn’t line him up. Golden point has turned into a farcical field goal-athon with countless hail Mary attempts from miles out. Scrap golden point, nothing wrong with a draw and earning a point.
August 18th 2012 @ 10:09am
Razza said | August 18th 2012 @ 10:09am | Report comment
Being an Eagles fan, it didn’t matter to me who won or how, but the golden point rule as exciting as it is with missed field goals that had everyone out of their seats with every attempt should be either played out for the 10 minutes, not ending after one team pots a fied goal, then if it is equal points after 10 minutes then call it a draw, it is too sudden death for one team where both teams made it an exiciting game.
In all it was a great game to watch, both teams had their chances and both teams deserved atleast 1 point each, but even though the Tigers played well to bounce back, the Bulldogs had it under control most of the game i thought and deserved to win, it was a typical Tigers second half comeback that they had put on the Eagles at Bluetongue Stadium last season to snatch a win.
I watched the game on channel 9 and Rabbits was blowing up about the shepherd and Pritchard running behind a team mate being Morris, the way i saw it Pritchard was running at the angel and Morris came through at speed as a decoy runner which made it look like Pritchard ran behind Morris, at no stage did i think it was an intensional shepherd by Pritchard he just ran his line, but it was easy to see that it coukld have been ruled as one and this is how the video ref saw it i woukld say.
In any case the decoy running of past games and in most games has a grey area about it and if anything a ruling of a minimin distance from the ball carrier can be implemented (i know another rule), unless the intension is to take the pass and most passes at close range to a decoy runner are nearly all close to being forward like in one case with the Bulldogs lastnight.
Anyway, no need whinging now the points are given and just imagine the outcry if it was the Eagles and not the Bulldogs, the outcry would be up in neon lights.(THE TEAM THAT EVERYONE LOVES TO HATE), ha ha haaaa.
“GO THE EAGLES”
August 18th 2012 @ 10:32am
Dogs Of War said | August 18th 2012 @ 10:32am | Report comment
To be fair, the Bulldogs are a close second in the team people love to hate stakes.