Seeking clarification

[The Who]

As I was at the game can someone clarify:
what was the penalty count?
Was it really a forward pass when Cherry 'scored'?
Was it really a shepherd when Tom Turbo 'scored'?

 

[Turbo]

As I was at the game can someone clarify:
what was the penalty count?
Was it really a forward pass when Cherry 'scored'?
Was it really a shepherd when Tom Turbo 'scored'?

No no IMO

Cherry scored off a flat pass
Cherry did run around Symonds but he didn't do anything to disadvantage sharks

 

[HappilyManly]

Manly 10 penalty conceded to 7 Sharks

Both Ref calls were right

The Tommy shepherd was Tred running in front of Chez. But the same play had Feki take Snake out without the ball , thats why Chez threw it to Tommy


We had 46% possession and completion of 72% and 59 more tackles

 

[NewwyEagle]

**** penalty could, the pass sadly was forward and I think that Taufua try was a really tough call. I guess it was right by the letter of the law

 

[Rex]

The obstruction call is total nonsense. By the time Cherry moved to T-Red's running line, T-Red had already completely passed through the defensive line without any impediment to them. Having already passed behind the defensive line, it is impossible for T-Red to be obstructing anyone.

If the bunker has accurately followed rules or accepted interpretations in making this decision, then the rules/interpretations need to be changed.

A bit of common-sense please!

 

[TokyoEagle]

The replay is posted on livestream, you could re-watch it there if you wanted.

 

[HoldenV8]

The obstruction call is total nonsense. By the time Cherry moved to T-Red's running line, T-Red had already completely passed through the defensive line without any impediment to them. Having already passed behind the defensive line, it is impossible for T-Red to be obstructing anyone.

If the bunker has accurately followed rules or accepted interpretations in making this decision, then the rules/interpretations need to be changed.

A bit of common-sense please!

Good points. I always thought that when the player continues and goes through the line instead of stopping at it then the obstruction is less likely.

Personally I don't think Maloney would have got to DCE anyway. Other than Symonds being there, Maloney was hanging back, not moving forward to tackle him.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

The obstruction call is total nonsense. By the time Cherry moved to T-Red's running line, T-Red had already completely passed through the defensive line without any impediment to them. Having already passed behind the defensive line, it is impossible for T-Red to be obstructing anyone.

If the bunker has accurately followed rules or accepted interpretations in making this decision, then the rules/interpretations need to be changed.

A bit of common-sense please!

That's what I thought at the time, don't know what the rule says though.

 

[double hoops]

Some League rules have been made way to grey. The change to the double movement rule so the arm carrying the ball can hit the ground if there is momentum is the perfect example.

You used to be able to see a try and say with 100℅ accuracy if it was or wasnt. Now it's a lottery.

I don't mind this shephard rule ATM as long as they are consistent. There was no impediment last night, so perhaps needs the name changed, but if the rule is as simple as you can't run behind your own man close to the defensive line. I'll appreciate that its black and white and move on.

 

[Rex]

Some League rules have been made way to grey. The change to the double movement rule so the arm carrying the ball can hit the ground if there is momentum is the perfect example.

You used to be able to see a try and say with 100℅ accuracy if it was or wasnt. Now it's a lottery.

I don't mind this shephard rule ATM as long as they are consistent. There was no impediment last night, so perhaps needs the name changed, but if the rule is as simple as you can't run behind your own man close to the defensive line. I'll appreciate that its black and white and move on.

First and foremost, rules should always serve a purpose. The obstruction rule serves a very important purpose. A rule penalising a player for running across the line of another player where there is no real obstruction - and in this case no possibility of obstruction - serves no positive purpose. It is an inane penalty.

The attempt to create absolute certainty of referee decisions is always doomed to failure. A referee might be able to find a penalty in almost every play if he uses black and white interpretations of all rules. It would ruin the game. We're not there to watch referees. Referees always need to use some judgement about the importance of any breaches.

The bunker needed to replay DCE's pass multiple time. Why? Because there was significant doubt about whether DCE had even crossed over the line of T-Red.

In focusing on these nit-picking obsessions, they miss the obvious and significant breaches. It was pointed out above that Brett Stewart was illegally tackled without the ball, reducing the optons for DCE. That would have been a clear penalty for referees who were focused on importance of breaches, rather than nit picking obstruction technicalities in an attempt to mindlessly follow flavour of the month interpretation rules in a black and white way.

A referee (or anyone else) who doesn't have (or trust) judgement - even when applying rules - might be charitably called a technician (aka a pleb, a monkey), but could not be called a professional.

 

[Fibro Eagle]

The Bunker seems to be consistent they try to make the decision quick
So if there is a hint of anything that's in the rule they go with the decision they think is the right decision so the decision they make is the right decision so they can't get the decision wrong

 

[Budgie]

I wondered if the Chez no-try had not been a forward pass, if he actually grounded it within the sideline. Looked close. Matters not.

 

[Rodo]

It would be interesting to see what would happen if the defensive line was say 10 metres or more away from the play with the attacking team standing very deep. Someone passes the ball after a runner has run in front of him (the runner is no where near the defensive line). They then go on to score a try. In this instance if you rule it black and white then they should be penalised but common sense would say that there is no way that the defender is close to the player who passed the ball so it should be a try.

Also obstructions occur during regular play throughout the game and rarely are penalties called in these instances.

 

[Simonmyers11]

As I was at the game can someone clarify:
what was the penalty count?
Was it really a forward pass when Cherry 'scored'?
Was it really a shepherd when Tom Turbo 'scored'?

Sharkies won the penalty count, got some pretty soft penalties in the first half starving us of the ball and making us defend our line on numerous occassions. Thought DCE was fine, flat ball. very hard done by. The obstruction rule was correct (by the law) but again a bit hard down by, was very close. Cherry passes one second earlier and it's ok.

 

[Crusher_Cleal]

I was there, although not the best viewing angle (behind the posts) - the pass looked forward to me. Re the obstruction, I'm not sure what the technical rule is, but just from a rugby league/common sense viewing - it sure looked like a try to me. Don't the Storm run and get away with that same move every week??

 

[nightster]

As I was at the game can someone clarify:
what was the penalty count?
Was it really a forward pass when Cherry 'scored'?
Was it really a shepherd when Tom Turbo 'scored'?

Don't know the penalty count ... but they were offside repeatedly
No not even flat it was backward out of his hands
No ... no defender was anything like impeded

imho

 

[jbb/james]

Its sad isnt it, that so many people that grew upnwith footy and have been passionately involved in the game just cant keep up with the rules. Nrl are a joke

I still dont get the zero tackle rule. Sometimes when they drop the ball they get a zero tackle sometimes they dont .whats that ****

From my view it seems open to the rort

 

[Rex]

Its sad isnt it, that so many people that grew upnwith footy and have been passionately involved in the game just cant keep up with the rules. Nrl are a joke

I still dont get the zero tackle rule. Sometimes when they drop the ball they get a zero tackle sometimes they dont .whats that ****

From my view it seems open to the rort

Only reverts to zero tackle when the opposition has knocked on, not backwards. Zero tackle for 20 metre restarts should only be for long range kicks going dead IMO.