Another round, another NRL bunker controversy.
Cronulla coach Shane Flanagan has ensured officials will come under scrutiny for yet another week after claiming the refereeing was “not up to scratch” in their 12-10 loss to Brisbane at Suncorp Stadium.
A week after benefiting from two officials’ howlers in their win over Canberra, Sharks mentor Flanagan claimed Cronulla were on the wrong end of “too many” bad calls before taking aim at the bunker.
His biggest gripe was the bunker’s decision to not award a 26th minute try to centre Ricky Leutele.
The referee recommended a try but video officials overruled it after replays suggested Brisbane fullback Jamayne Isaako’s boot stopped the ball from touching the ground.
“Clearly I think any fair judge would find it hard to find sufficient evidence to overrule the on-field decision,” Flanagan said.
“We were on the positive end last week, we are on the negative end this week.
“There was just too many of them (tough calls). It’s a concern for the game. That refereeing standard wasn’t up to scratch.”
The fallout over the gaffes in Cronulla’s last round win over Canberra prompted a plea from NRL CEO Todd Greenberg for officials to “get better” ahead of the finals.
But officials are again in the headlines after Flanagan’s post-match spray.
Cronulla co-captain Paul Gallen bit his tongue when asked about the officiating.
“They looked at it how many times? 20 times? So they had to look at it that many times to try and find sufficient evidence that it didn’t touch a blade of grass but I’ll let Flanno worry about that,” Gallen said of the bunker’s no-try call on Leutele.
“We were very brave but we should have got that done.
“That’s a hard loss because I thought we should have won.”
Cronulla halfback Chad Townsend was left to rue a butchered conversion right in front early in the second half that would have given the visitors a 12-10 lead.
Sharks winger Valentine Holmes bagged a double by the 44th minute to lock up the scores 10-10 and take his try tally to a league leading 17 in 14 games.
But Townsend couldn’t slot what looked like a simple conversion, hitting the post instead.
“Give Brisbane credit, they defended well I suppose but in the end we should have kicked that goal … who knows, we might have gone to golden point,” Flanagan said.
Haz
Guest
Turbo's injury wasn't due to foul play. The ball BOUNCED then they both went up and Mead grabbed him. Fair play. Tackled in the air only applies when the defender attempts to catch it ON THE FULL. But if they were really serious about protecting players in the air, then they should get rid of the ball bouncing rule.
Fraser
Guest
Taking a decision gracefully in this day of players raising their arms in protest instead of playing to the whistle? When coaches only complain if they lose? Come off it mate.
Buttery
Guest
I have only one thing to say about Lautele's no try, it should have been a penalty try as Isaako deliberately stuck his boot in there to stop it, under the Billy Slater rule, you are not allowed to stick your boot in.
Adz Sportz
Roar Guru
Sharks copped some horrendous call last night. And even though the critics will say they got all the lucky decisions last week, the Broncos win with help from the refs makes it more difficult for the Tigers to catch them. On a side note, Flanagan should be more concerned about his misfiring halfback.
Matt H
Roar Guru
Agree 100%
nearkurnell
Guest
we'll see come September...
McTavish
Roar Rookie
I don't know were you get the idea that tyre is a massive push for coaches to acknowledge the favourable calls they got, and the fact that Flanagan mentioned they got lucky last week does not give him carte blanche to unfairly bag the refs. The consensus is that their were no howlers this week and the refs overall did a good job, even if they didn't get every decision right according to whichever eye you had open. Flanno even mentioning them reduces accountability from his players and unfairly increases pressure on the refs.
Gray-Hand
Guest
#Broncosgetfewerpenaltiesbutitsthetimingofthepenaltiesthatgivesthemanunfairadvantage !
Adam
Roar Guru
Why even do that though? I've made the point before that they should not release this kind of information the following day. There's accountability and then there is unnecessarily throwing your employees to the wolves. I don't want to exaggerate, but how long before the referees consider a strike against the treatment from their bosses?
souvalis
Roar Rookie
Bernard Sutton has just released a statement saying all 3 penalties 2 against Moylan and 1 against Prior were incorrect....there you have it...
Nat
Roar Guru
The one wrong allocation p/h is the way the Knights/Saints game was played. https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/nathan-brown-calls-for-captain-s-challenge-to-offset-referee-errors-20180722-p4zsyk.html At least if you get it wrong once, the game moves on but doesn't stop the howler that could cost a game. If we have 2-3-4 and the same applies and we will blow up if it happens in the last minute of a GF where the ref can now send it to the bunker. According to your other posts here you would have this challenge made available to every call. We had the video ref adjudicating on in-field play but taken away because we (the public and media) whinged because it took away from the game so it was refined to just in goal play. To use your method, the Captain could challenge every decision and send it to the video ref, every Captain would because they can and give their team time to reset. For the 1% of times it may be right, congratulations, you just destroyed rugby league as a spectacle. Neither Tennis or Cricket are fair comparisons because we have a flowing game while they play for 1 point/run and reset but they have limited number of incorrect challenges. Further if you look at how many calls are upheld as a %, it clearly proves the refs get it right an extraordinary amount of time.
Ray Stewart
Roar Rookie
Sharks were not good enough to win last month at Shark Park against the same opposition (without the rub of the green). Your clutching mate
Ray Stewart
Roar Rookie
Too true. After a Broncos win, hard to find complimentary articles on how well they played. All we are bombarded with is controversial calls that 'supposedly' turned the match in Brisbane's favour. Been happening all year, really pathetic.
Forty Twenty
Guest
Who said one wrong call per half is the allocation? Only a fool would stick to that if it wasn't enough. You could argue that whats the point of having a 'Captains Call' in any sport ( and you will no doubt) because they might run out of challenges. Just watch a cricket or tennis match to see how it works in real life. It's the same principle ( no doubt you will argue that it's not) and if you don't think it is better than not having a challenge system just consult the head of tennis or cricket with your great insight , they'll be so glad to hear from you. Brown didn't think one game meant nothing and of course he is correct. It's a start.
John
Guest
"Flanagan made the admission that his team got the better end of the pineapple last week" Would he have made that admission if he didn't feel aggrieved this game? He had no problems with the refs last week and certainly gave no indication that they were favoured. And he was given plenty of opportunities to address it leading into this game. It's only when his team got the wrong end that he admits it so that he can launch into his own tirade without looking like a hypocrite.
Adam
Roar Guru
He made contact with the legs so he might have stood a chance being penalised in the AFL. My knowledge of AFL probably doesn't stretch far enough to provide a definitive answer though. And I agree whole heartedly about your point if it was Moylan who went over as well. There needs to be protection around the aerial contest. Moylan was out-jumped so really gives up his rights to the benefit of the doubt in my mind. The stupidest rule in NRL is the fact you can tackle an attacking player if he jumps for the ball. It's just crazy
MrJSquishy
Roar Pro
Forty Twenty. The 2018 interpretations (which constitute part of the rules) talks in Player Misconduct about "When a player forcefully spears at the legs of a player in possession exposing him to unnecessary risk of injury" Again though, it is important to point out that INTENTION is not mentioned, it is merely the act of forcefully charging into a persons legs while he is in the air. Moylan was running hard to get to the ball, he attempted to catch it, he got a hand on it, but, in that act continued his path through the legs of Isaako exposing him to unnecessary risk of injury. It is a penalty. Nothing more. But it is a penalty.
Forty Twenty
Guest
I agree that the NRL should look at any issue which involves safety. What if it was Moylan who sailed above the pack and ended up with a neck injury? Why is that ok because his team kicks the ball, same dangerous outcome. AFL must have a lot more of these collisions , I wonder if Moylan would have been penalised in that code?
souvalis
Roar Rookie
squishy..short drop outs are only about retrieving the ball,hence its the focal point of the eye...it defeats all logical purposes to do one than sit back and watch the opposition field it uncontested 10 meters out from your own line..tackle in the air,sure penalize it but its illogical to think that any contest for the ball in mid air at speed will not potentially result in someone being placed in a dangerous position..hence dont penalize accidents,penalize intent..
Emcie
Roar Guru
I'm sure it would work on occasion, but being gung-ho about the concept without any consideration for unintended consequences is ignorance in the extreme.