The NRL’s Head of Football Graham Annesley has conceded the Wests Tigers’ second try against the North Queensland Cowboys should have been referred to the Bunker where it would have been overturned due to a knock-on.
Annesley’s concession came in his weekly briefing with media over the round’s decisions.
However, despite Cowboys coach Paul Green and a number of other rugby league figures’ criticism of the penalty try awarded to Michael Chee Kam, Annesley has defended the call.
The referees boss said ultimately the law comes down to the opinion of the official involved and that there is never definitive evidence available.
Insider
Roar Rookie
Should have, could have, didn’t! Same song same mistakes just fix it
Maximus
Guest
Blame the lawmakers for making a stupid rule about allowing stripping of the ball when scoring as compared to all other times. A player can stop an opponent scoring other than by stripping the ball so it was a stupid out that they put in as was to allow stripping with more than 1 in the tackle if all but one drop off. You'll need a QC to ref the game soon...
Rob
Guest
BA, how is it you're actual able to come up with the correct decision making process yet 5 NSW based officials being paid as professionals can't? It appears the Cowboys don't score legit tries? The video (Bunker) has been called upon 9 times to review Cowboy tries over the last two weeks. The officials have award 2 tries without review. On 3 occasions the Bunker have ruled no tries twice over ruling ref's original decision against the Cowboys. Both Manly and the Tigers combined have had 7 tries award and had 2 reviewed? It appears tries against the Cowboys should be awarded without Review when possible? Manly's final try was from a Kick and a lost ball in contact the Ref award the try immediately Please watch the Manly players (14) contact on Morgan. The rules state, "A shoulder charge is made when the tackling player uses his shoulder and/or upper arm without, at the same time, using his arms to tackle or otherwise take hold of the opposing player. The term “arms” obviously includes hands. The requirement to use “the arms” means that both arms must be used. Unless both arms are used, then providing the actions of the player are at least careless, any case involving forceful contact that has been primarily generated by the shoulder and/or upper arm of the tackling player, will be a shoulder charge." It will be considered misconduct, if any player affects a tackle in the manner as defined. Morgan loses the ball in contact and lands on his shoulder and back? The same player injures McClean a few minutes later leaving the Cowboys to play final 10min with 12 players. The Rules State Third Man In "When a player in possession is held in an upright position by two defenders, any other defender[s] must make initial contact to the player in possession above the knees/knee joint. Regardless of the point of impact, a player can still be penalised for any ‘forceful, dangerous or unnecessary contact’ at the legs that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to the player in possession. In relation to this type of tackle, the Referees will call ‘held’ and then ‘release’." Tuala is called back on his way to scoring and penalised for illegally stripping. Bolton is grabbed from behind while trying to get to a kick in the in goal (possible penalty try) no professional foul. Tafua lands short of the line but gets the benefit of the doubt in promotion of the football.
BA Sports
Roar Guru
First one should always have been checked. There is no way any of them had a clean look at the contest. 2nd one, I can live with. At the end of the day if the video ref had ruled play on, you roll the tape and the Tigers are the first to ground the ball anyway. So the only difference is the conversion is 10 m to the side of the posts.
Chuck
Guest
Tha Cows ar dudded each and every week, to complain is to invite ridicule. There is nothing at all that cna be done about it, all the team can do is know that they are 12 points behind when they run onto the field. Start the game, 12 points down. Get over it and move on.
Rob
Guest
The “in the Ref’s opinion”?The Bunker made the call not the ref? Also the rules state that 2 or more players can’t stand in front of the kicker beside the ruck ( I suspect for the sole reason to impede the defence). On all 3 of the Tigers drop goal attempts 2 Tigers player deliberate stood adjacent to the ruck in front of the kicker? Is it okay as they aren’t able to hold hands? What defines Side by side ? When Morgan attempted a field goal 1 Cowboys player was in front of him probably because that’s is the intention of what the rules allow. Is it any wonder that games are being decided by team who can best flaunt the rules? It is obvious Kahu effectively strips the ball as the Tigers player is trying to ground the ball so how does the bunker over rule the original decision and award a penalty try? How was Bolton penalised for stripping under the new rules. The Tigers second try not being at least sent to the Bunker is beyond incompetence IMO.
JOHN ALLAN
Guest
Yeah we probably made the right decision at the time however it was possibly wrong. ?????????? NRL on a Monday is obliged to explain it's weekend's contentious decisions. If a team is "dudded" they feel justified. Doesn't get them the points though.
Maximus
Guest
Yeah the rule book says a knock-on is the ball propelled towards the opponents deadball line or somesuch but every dropped ball no matter what direction it goes is deemed a knockon - explain that rule