Unbelievable bunker miss, try of the year and phenomenal save in 2021's most outrageous finish

There was intent to be involved in the contest and he was close enough to it to effect (or is affect) other players decisions. Therefore I don't think he is passive. I understand your argument, but don't agree.

he is allowed to get into position to receive the pass. He was made onside by that point.

This is right, though i dont see how this call can be described as a howler. I (and some others i know) deem Brown to be passive. Though many on this thread (and some others i know deem Brown to be active. If there is a fair argument to be made both ways for any decision I dont think it can be considered a howler. Just one of the many calls throughout the game that could go either way but is awarded based on the referees opinion.

Why do you believe it is not passive? He was not involved in the contest?

The within 2m of the contest does not matter unless he is, in the opinion of the referee, to be pressuring the player catching the ball. Once the referee believes he is not pressuring the opposition player not only is he passive he became onside under (b) below. Papallii running (backwards) into him does not matter. In fact it only ensures that he should be deemed onside, (c) below. 3. An offside player is placed onside if: (a) an opponent moves ten metres or more with the ball. (b) an opponent touches the ball without retaining it. (c) one of his own team in possession of the ball runs in front of him. (d) one of his own team kicks or knocks the ball forward and takes up a position in front of him in the field of play. (e) he retires behind the point where the ball was last touched by one of his own team, or to his own in- goal

Well you can now officially body check people then. Even though PVL is all about protecting the players.... All I know is, replace Rapana with Billy Slater and all anyone is saying is "grub", "send off" "penalty try", "suspend him".

When it comes to foul play though rugby league generally doesn't penalise on intention, though - it penalises on outcome. If a defender comes into a tackle with a swinging arm aimed at an attacker's head but misses completely and has an air-swing it's play on. You can make a reasonable argument that Rapana intended to shoulder charge Sivo but the fact is that the contact was Rapana's hip on Sivo's torso - and that's not against the rules.

That's a pretty good point!

Early in the second half Hudson Young kicks a ball in mid air. Soliola is two inside him in the back line and ahead of him when the ball hits Hudson Young's foot. Ball goes to the ingoal, Gutherson picks up Soliola is right infront of him, he gets tackled in goal. Drop out. Raiders score three tackles later. The bigger question is the hit by Rapana at the end. Note the word "hit" not "tackle", because he is not trying to make a tackle. So if he is not trying to make a tackle and he throws his body into a player, what is it other than a penalty?

Agreed, just because he didn't actually touch the ball or the Canberra player, doesn't mean he didn't impact the play. That was the definition of a "howler". I was watching it live cursing Brown, as it was the second kick in a row where he was in front of the kicker. Could not believe the try was awarded.

Here's the thing though, it won't. Exactly the same thing could happen next week, and it goes the other way, it will raise an eyebrow then be quickly forgotten when the next howler arrives. This is how it's been for years and is now normal operations.

A good game, but that offside "miss" which resulted in the Eels try was a howler. Why does it become stressful every-time a decision goes to the bunker? You need to brace yourself for a ridiculous outcome.

Have a look at who was in the bunker last night and it will answer your questions. Fair dinkum, the bloke wouldn't know sht from shoepolish (to quote the 12th Man).

If that is classified as passive it will create further confusion and problems with adjudication which we really don't need.

Papali ran into him after catching the ball! He was within 2m of the contest, that is not passive. The bunker didn't even clear him as onside, only the outside kick chase.

You're right, I was probably just having a whinge :laughing: But yes, I noticed them having a 2nd look and I heard the word passive mentioned, which was ludicrous because he continued to move forward and actively got into a position to receive a pass

Nah, the last shot the bunker showed clearly showed that he grounded it before his foot went into touch. As Vossy said, that is what the bunker was brought in for. It all shouldn't have mattered though, Brown was clearly offside, I have no idea how it was missed, especially when they seemed to go back and have another look at it.

c'mon bunker! Why are you so broken! They need some lessons on how to make decisions. That went up as a no try so they needed to have overwhelming evidence to overturn the try. The offside was a terrible miss and the grounding was absolute freeze frame stuff where I had to get off my couch to stare at the screen from a foot away to be semi certain that he had placed the ball half a moment before he was in touch. :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :sick:

Was passive IMO. Correct call

Really!!!! :happy: