Annesley's weakly "Why this happened" report - 2022

  • We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.

globaleagle

0011001110
Staff member
Premium Member
Tipping Member
We had this thread last year so I thought it'd might be good to have a nice shiny 2022 version of a thread filled with excuses that may be so good we can use them in our own lives.

In other threads it's been stated that his go to reason now is "Players make mistakes too, so nyah nyah nyah."

In addition:

He states the NRL are unhappy with the fine NAS got for swinging an arm into a defenceless player's head but they don't control what the MRC do. Fair enough, that dumbass decision is on the mrc.

When a ref made a mistake in the tackle count - that was his..."well players make mistakes as well" comment.

He admitted that the ref should have sent the tigers try up to the bunker, but the ref thought it wasn't and "feels really weaaly weaaaly bad" about it.
It'd be nice to know why he didn't send it to the bunker when at the very least it was close. As game time stops, a ref shouldn't go "oh well...I "think" it's no try so play on.
Unfortunately, that's all we're getting - He thought it was a no try, ignored the tigers' players pleas and now feels bad.


NRL's head of football, Graham Annesley, says Przeklasa-Adamski realises he erred in not referring the decision to the Bunker, regardless of whether the Bunker would have then awarded the try or not.

(Surely that's "using of the Bunker101" stuff)
 
We had this thread last year so I thought it'd might be good to have a nice shiny 2022 version of a thread filled with excuses that may be so good we can use them in our own lives.

In other threads it's been stated that his go to reason now is "Players make mistakes too, so nyah nyah nyah."

In addition:

He states the NRL are unhappy with the fine NAS got for swinging an arm into a defenceless player's head but they don't control what the MRC do. Fair enough, that dumbass decision is on the mrc.

When a ref made a mistake in the tackle count - that was his..."well players make mistakes as well" comment.

He admitted that the ref should have sent the tigers try up to the bunker, but the ref thought it wasn't and "feels really weaaly weaaaly bad" about it.
It'd be nice to know why he didn't send it to the bunker when at the very least it was close. As game time stops, a ref shouldn't go "oh well...I "think" it's no try so play on.
Unfortunately, that's all we're getting - He thought it was a no try, ignored the tigers' players pleas and now feels bad.


NRL's head of football, Graham Annesley, says Przeklasa-Adamski realises he erred in not referring the decision to the Bunker, regardless of whether the Bunker would have then awarded the try or not.

(Surely that's "using of the Bunker101" stuff)
What gets me is say, a ref rules a drop out and without asking for the bunker to look at it, they do and overrule for a 20m restart.
They pick up other stuff in the run of play or three tackles later…
..So why the hell do they not look at that anyway and say to the ref, hold play up, we’re just checking it?

Why are some plays worthy of the bunker’s intervention and others not?

The bunker should be all in or not at all.
 
How is it the the match review committee have made such a stuff up when it is a serial dirty play offender in NAS who happens to play for the team that is the seed of everything that is wrong in rugby league to this day i.e wrestling ,holding down , crushers ,chicken wings etc etc ,the word IRONIC comes to mind .If one didnt know better one could easily surmise that there was a rort going on as the Scum is short a few forwards and cannot afford to have another one obliterated from the game despite it being highly warranted and justly deserved .
Call me overly suspicious if you like .
 
I guess he didn’t mention the manly scrum penalty? I can’t be bothered watching.
Most probably because it didn't affect the outcome but that doesn't excuse an obvious bad call.

Maybe the bunker or touchies need to be able to step in with these sort of calls.
 
Did he explain why we got reamed sideways with a sharp stick by the Dogs markers standing next to the play the ball all fu*king night. Was it the rain making it too hard for cumstain to see where their markers were.
 
Did he explain why we got reamed sideways with a sharp stick by the Dogs markers standing next to the play the ball all fu*king night. Was it the rain making it too hard for cumstain to see where their markers were.
Ahhh, Mick! Don't ever change, mate. Don't ever change.
 
Last night on 360 Kent said that the NRL administration have no power to overrule a dud decision by the MRC, they can only ask them to review an incident that wasn’t reported.

How ridiculous is that ?
 
Can we just summarise every post so far and into the future?

“The atrocious decision that everyone saw with their own eyes was fine because of this reason that I’ll blah blah”: Annesley.
 
Last night on 360 Kent said that the NRL administration have no power to overrule a dud decision by the MRC, they can only ask them to review an incident that wasn’t reported.

How ridiculous is that ?


The nrl say that it is to ensure the independence of the mrc. Which I can understand, though somewhere along the line the nrl probably hire these people.

It's a bit like that "totally independent" committee (or board) that reviews politicians wages, but, amazingly, always comes back with the decision to raise their pay.
 
The nrl say that it is to ensure the independence of the mrc. Which I can understand, though somewhere along the line the nrl probably hire these people.

It's a bit like that "totally independent" committee (or board) that reviews politicians wages, but, amazingly, always comes back with the decision to raise their pay.
In the case of Mitch Barnett the Knights barrister asked for 4 weeks and the NRL prosecutor wanted 8 so the MRC handed down 6.

That was easy, don't need to have a degree in pure mathematics to come up with that outcome.
 
ok champs.

Just listened to annesley's report so you don't have to (I should be your king...)

a) said it was correct to send a dogs player to the bin as in the 1st 26 mins there was 2 penalties, 2 warnings and 4-5 (cant remember) 6 agains.

b) 2 incidents from roosters v warriors.
warriors lose the ball...challenge and lose
roosters lose the ball....challenge and win.

Annesley said both incidents were ruck interference so warriors should've won their challenge.

c) Short kickoff: knights v dragons. dragon player go back onside to catch the knockback so he is happy with the decision (though said it was close) Gus gould won't be happy.

d) then spoke about 'lower teams not getting the 50-50 calls.'

Said that this wasn't true. Refs and bunkers don't rule on who the supposed stronger team is. Said it's all hogwash. Then said weaker teams probably try to slow the stronger teams down so get pinged more - (which is irrelavent as he was talking about 50-50's)

Anyway it's "such rubbish" that he dedicated 11 mins of his 30 mins talking about it.

-If I were a journo I'd ask him to explain his statement on no bias with respect to point 'b' above. But it's 11.30pm so I'm going to bed


you're damn welcome!
 
ok champs.

Just listened to annesley's report so you don't have to (I should be your king...)

a) said it was correct to send a dogs player to the bin as in the 1st 26 mins there was 2 penalties, 2 warnings and 4-5 (cant remember) 6 agains.

b) 2 incidents from roosters v warriors.
warriors lose the ball...challenge and lose
roosters lose the ball....challenge and win.

Annesley said both incidents were ruck interference so warriors should've won their challenge.

c) Short kickoff: knights v dragons. dragon player go back onside to catch the knockback so he is happy with the decision (though said it was close) Gus gould won't be happy.

d) then spoke about 'lower teams not getting the 50-50 calls.'

Said that this wasn't true. Refs and bunkers don't rule on who the supposed stronger team is. Said it's all hogwash. Then said weaker teams probably try to slow the stronger teams down so get pinged more - (which is irrelavent as he was talking about 50-50's)

Anyway it's "such rubbish" that he dedicated 11 mins of his 30 mins talking about it.

-If I were a journo I'd ask him to explain his statement on no bias with respect to point 'b' above. But it's 11.30pm so I'm going to bed


you're damn welcome!
Thanks for that.

My question is, why does he even bother doing it live ?

It's a pile pf garbage which would be better delivered like press release as there's no reason given for the dud decisions and people like you don't have to waste 30 minutes listening to it.

If it's to show accountability, well there isn't any.
 
Annesley should be charged with fraud. He is accepting money by fraudulently faking it as an administrator and he has his whole business life in Rugba League.
 
Then said weaker teams probably try to slow the stronger teams down so get pinged more - (which is irrelavent as he was talking about 50-50's)
And there it is, confirming his own unconscious bias. So a team the ref thinks will try to slow the other team down get scrutinised more closely and end up penalised (or 6-agained) more often, while the team not under suspicion somehow holds down for longer but doesn't get pinged.
One of the most annoying things in the game.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
3 3 0 48 6
4 3 1 28 6
3 2 1 10 6
4 2 2 39 4
3 2 1 28 4
3 2 1 15 4
3 2 1 14 4
2 1 1 13 4
2 1 1 6 4
3 2 1 -3 4
3 1 2 0 2
3 1 2 -5 2
3 1 2 -15 2
3 1 2 -22 2
3 1 2 -36 2
2 0 2 -56 2
3 0 3 -64 0
Back
Top Bottom