These Black and white rules are still grey

[maxta]

Anyone who has laced a boot knows that's a try to Koula and even with the Jake not running through the line, the defender actually moved up and into Jake and basically "bear hugs" Jake....which in many ways is on the defender.
I do know also jake has a right to run through the line as an option runner, but this was a very touch and go call and in most cases would have been awarded.
The real problem about this black/white stuff....ok there was a Roosters try where the Cheese brandon Smith recieves a pass , runs across field behind his player (which is auto obstruction and you must submit) , but threw a "flat" pass to Tedesco who scores under the post.
Did Smith obstruct anyone (hell no) and would I say try - (100%), but if we are doing this black/white ruling it's 100% no try.

My point is this game will keep dishing up dog**** decisions, when we have the refs using both common sense and black/white rulings......I mean the rules should be enforced until such time, the officials can use the good of common sense when replaying the action and have the ability to make the ''right call"....not based on a stupid text book by some nerd who has never played the game.

 

[Nordburg]

Anyone who has laced a boot knows that's a try to Koula and even with the Jake not running through the line, the defender actually moved up and into Jake and basically "bear hugs" Jake....which in many ways is on the defender.
I do know also jake has a right to run through the line as an option runner, but this was a very touch and go call and in most cases would have been awarded.
The real problem about this black/white stuff....ok there was a Roosters try where the Cheese brandon Smith recieves a pass , runs across field behind his player (which is auto obstruction and you must submit) , but threw a "flat" pass to Tedesco who scores under the post.
Did Smith obstruct anyone (hell no) and would I say try - (100%), but if we are doing this black/white ruling it's 100% no try.

My point is this game will keep dishing up dog**** decisions, when we have the refs using both common sense and black/white rulings......I mean the rules should be enforced until such time, the officials can use the good of common sense when replaying the action and have the ability to make the ''right call"....not based on a stupid text book by some nerd who has never played the game.

The problem is,one refs/bunker common sense,is likely to be different to another’s.Hence the reason for black and white rules.What was your interpretation of the TomT pass to Koula in that play?I thought it was forward,you may have a different view.
Another example of a rule verse a common sense decision was the no try to Kikau last week when Kennedy ran into the ref on the try line.Most people who would of used common sense in that situation,would say it’s a try because Kennedy wouldn’t of stopped Kikau but that’s not fair on Kennedy because he was deprived of the opportunity to stop him.This is why black and white rules are there,to hopefully keep rulings consistent.Now whether or not refs apply the rules consistently,is where the problems lie

 

[frank stokes]

Anyone recall one of these a couple of seasons back where Chez threw himself into the back of a defender and the opponents (broncs?) were denied a try even though Chez was never a hope of being involved in the play? It was pretty much on the goal line I believe (5-10m out)
Sorry, my memory is crap so details are a little light but I do recall the basic situation and also Chez being lauded for his “quick thinking”…

 

[The Who]

The remedy is simply: Get rid of the Bunker.
The on-field ref rightly ruled it a try. Why can't we return to the sport we all started following, when common sense rulings applied and if the eye couldn't see something then it didn't happen?
The NRL would save a lot of money. Decisions would be made instantly. There would be no 'down-time' as we wait for some joker in a room to get all CSI on us.
Of course there will be mistakes made; that's what happens in all sporting contests. But it would eliminate the influence that a Vidiot has over an outcome . . .
and Doesn'tmatta would then only need to bribe one official to get decisions to go their way.

 

[BOZO]

This thread reminds me of the movie 50 shades of grey
There is nothing black and white in love making choices and nothing black and white on refs on field decisions.

We cannot control others actions but we can always choose how to respond to them
Our Great Grand Final Manly Winning teams of the past Prevailed by responding with Great Composure and Resilience

The moral of the 50 shades of Grey story ...
Nothing and No one Ever stopped the Great Manly teams from Winning
Great Manly teams screwed every team all the way to their Grand final wins

 

[maxta]

The problem is,one refs/bunker common sense,is likely to be different to another’s.Hence the reason for black and white rules.What was your interpretation of the TomT pass to Koula in that play?I thought it was forward,you may have a different view.
Another example of a rule verse a common sense decision was the no try to Kikau last week when Kennedy ran into the ref on the try line.Most people who would of used common sense in that situation,would say it’s a try because Kennedy wouldn’t of stopped Kikau but that’s not fair on Kennedy because he was deprived of the opportunity to stop him.This is why black and white rules are there,to hopefully keep rulings consistent.Now whether or not refs apply the rules consistently,is where the problems lie

I rule it a try in relation to obstruction - a clear try.
The pass was marginal and from first glance I seen it as slightly forward.....personally I think they should be able to rule on forward passes and a "flat" pass for the Tuilagi try by Eels from close range would also have come under the microscope if this was the case and I would call it back 100%.
I don't so much agree with the interpretations being different, if the blokes making the call was an ex player, as they would agree on 99% of the calls.....as example you and I both feel it was a clear line break with no problem and that the pass by Tom went forward also, so that's an easy 2 from 2 there.
Let's rewind and Tom kicks to an onside Koula, it's a try right....NO, because they come back to that ridiculous no common sense ruling about Jake.
I'm not crying about no try and the more time has gone on since that game, I think Manly were robbed by themselves as much as the officialing....but the obstruction I seen with Tedesco scoring, then the 1 you mention with Kikau, then the break by Tom yesterday enable the current officials to make or break a game and that's a concern, regardless of it being Manly or any side and it happens every week and I can see it deciding critical games come finals time.

 

[maxta]

This thread reminds me of the movie 50 shades of grey
There is nothing black and white in love making choices and nothing black and white on refs on field decisions.

We cannot control others actions but we can always choose how to respond to them
Our Great Grand Final Manly Winning teams of the past Prevailed by responding with Great Composure and Resilience

The moral of the 50 shades of Grey story ...
Nothing and No one Ever stopped the Great Manly teams from Winning
Great Manly teams screwed every team all the way to their Grand final wins
View attachment 26444

You have a dirty mind Bozo my man and that's fine, but I want common sense to be the decider over a text book every day of the week.
The point you make about "how" the team responds to it is 100% valid and I totally agree, right down to Manly having much to do with giving up that 14 - 0 lead and just maybe, this game is a lesson learned in many ways....depending how the players respond and show the backbone required to be the real deal in 2024 after this game, will be a true challenge.

 

[maxta]

The remedy is simply: Get rid of the Bunker.
The on-field ref rightly ruled it a try. Why can't we return to the sport we all started following, when common sense rulings applied and if the eye couldn't see something then it didn't happen?
The NRL would save a lot of money. Decisions would be made instantly. There would be no 'down-time' as we wait for some joker in a room to get all CSI on us.
Of course there will be mistakes made; that's what happens in all sporting contests. But it would eliminate the influence that a Vidiot has over an outcome . . .
and Doesn'tmatta would then only need to bribe one official to get decisions to go their way.

I don't mind this at all....the only thing I have seen be a difference maker with bunker is the replay of those spectacular winger tries in the corner where there's just a blade of grass in it, but I could even live with this just being decided by ref and touchie ....this bunker also saps up the momentum of a game when replays go on for 5 minutes, we are there to watch the game roll on, not 58 replays , get on with it !!

 

[BOZO]

You have a dirty mind Bozo my man and that's fine, but I want common sense to be the decider over a text book every day of the week.
The point you make about "how" the team responds to it is 100% valid and I totally agree, right down to Manly having much to do with giving up that 14 - 0 lead and just maybe, this game is a lesson learned in many ways....depending how the players respond and show the backbone required to be the real deal in 2024 after this game, will be a true challenge.

I agree with what you are saying as well over text book decisions my Great feathered friend but you also must agree with the perplexed perception of individuals views .

We must accept that human /ref error is unavoidable and build a winning platform at the back of team composure and resilience Just like our Great premiership Winning teams of the past that were proven to beat both their opponents and the refs

We gave away our 14 points lead by giving away 18 error hand over possession to the eels.
We can not control others errors but we can learn to control our errors and take more control of the game .

Have A Sexy 50 shades of Grey Day @maxta

 

[Nordburg]

The remedy is simply: Get rid of the Bunker.
The on-field ref rightly ruled it a try. Why can't we return to the sport we all started following, when common sense rulings applied and if the eye couldn't see something then it didn't happen?
The NRL would save a lot of money. Decisions would be made instantly. There would be no 'down-time' as we wait for some joker in a room to get all CSI on us.
Of course there will be mistakes made; that's what happens in all sporting contests. But it would eliminate the influence that a Vidiot has over an outcome . . .
and Doesn'tmatta would then only need to bribe one official to get decisions to go their way.

Because we have the technology and the Bunker gets more right than wrong.The problem is,we and everybody else,seem to be arguing/discussing 50/50 calls or ones that aren’t blatantly obvious.The howlers are what the Bunker is for.There are only Manly fans and a handful of others that think it was a wrong ruling yesterday.As long as it’s consistent,as they say

 

[XV-1]

Every player in the NRL knows about the obstruction rule. It is black and white.

Jake needed to be penalised - no try. Plain and simple. All he had to do was move 3 more metres forward past the defender.

It doesn't matter that the ref called try. Every try scoring movement is looked at by the bunker.

I cannot believe the biitching and moaning about this. Yet everyone is ignoring the multiple errors we made that put us in that position.

As DCE said in the pressr. As long as the NRL is consistent, he had no issue with the call.

Time to move on

 

[maxta]

Every player in the NRL knows about the obstruction rule. It is black and white.

Jake needed to be penalised - no try. Plain and simple. All he had to do was move 3 more metres forward past the defender.

It doesn't matter that the ref called try. Every try scoring movement is looked at by the bunker.

I cannot believe the biitching and moaning about this. Yet everyone is ignoring the multiple errors we made that put us in that position.

As DCE said in the pressr. As long as the NRL is consistent, he had no issue with the call.

Time to move on

Your probably right, we won't all see eye to eye on every call, but the whining is not good and I got caught up in it yesterday watching at Uncle Bernard's house who happens to be an Eels tragic, so I was hyped to the bones.....but there was good and bad to take from that loss and we done more harm to ourselves at key moments that gifted them momentum, more than any officials calls.
It's easy to get a tad emotional after a tough loss to look back and see what calls were right or wrong and lament what "might have been"....but in reality it's a weak option to look for excuses and as I see it right now - your outlook on this game is pretty damn accurate in saying 'let's not dwell on the BS, time to move on"

 

[BOZO]

As DCE said in the pressr. As long as the NRL is consistent, he had no issue with the call.

We have shown we are capable of being a good footy team playing some good footy but we also must be more consistent if we are to win more games

Progressive teams do not dodge Responsibility
They accept Accountability for their errors and learn to prevail
Only the road of Accountably leads to Excellence
The road of Excuses leads to Mediocracy

 

[Dee Why Eagle]

What happens when a try is scored on one side of the field but on the other side, close to the try line, a player stops at the line & an opponent grabs him? Is the try allowed on the basis that "obstruction" occurred too far away? If so, then how far is too far? If not, then what a ridiculous state!

 

[Rocky]

For me there is too much emphasis on the referee and the bunker and were we hard done by or not etc.

Of course, these guys get it wrong. They do and it does happen and often.

But believe it or not Manly also gets ref or bunker calls that the other teams supporters say are wrong!

If we were on the other side of the Koula no try, we would be yelling obstruction from the rooftops.

The real point is that over the course of a season, this stuff generally evens itself out.

You can bet any money that Seibold and the team will not be worrying about these decisions today. They know they lost the game for other reasons. Such as the number of errors made in the course of the game.

 

[frank stokes]

Anyone recall one of these a couple of seasons back where Chez threw himself into the back of a defender and the opponents (broncs?) were denied a try even though Chez was never a hope of being involved in the play? It was pretty much on the goal line I believe (5-10m out)
Sorry, my memory is crap so details are a little light but I do recall the basic situation and also Chez being lauded for his “quick thinking”…

Found it… and my memory is not so bad after all as it was almost 4 years ago against broncs (Corey Oates) and about 5m out with buckleys of impacting the play…

'Blatant': Daly Cherry-Evans under fire over contentious act

One of Queensland's favourite sons has accused the Maroons' captain of having a history of underhanded tactics.

au.sports.yahoo.com

Interesting thing is that “DCE dive” throws up multiple different instances to choose from … no wonder our Cap is fine with the ruling

 

[LeonardCohen]

The problem is,one refs/bunker common sense,is likely to be different to another’s.Hence the reason for black and white rules.What was your interpretation of the TomT pass to Koula in that play?I thought it was forward,you may have a different view.
Another example of a rule verse a common sense decision was the no try to Kikau last week when Kennedy ran into the ref on the try line.Most people who would of used common sense in that situation,would say it’s a try because Kennedy wouldn’t of stopped Kikau but that’s not fair on Kennedy because he was deprived of the opportunity to stop him.This is why black and white rules are there,to hopefully keep rulings consistent.Now whether or not refs apply the rules consistently,is where the problems lie

You know what’s interesting about the forward pass rule…commentators and spectators alike, seem to forget the rule concerns ‘out of the hands’ not ball trajectory from one point to the next.

I can see from the replay that it floats forward but If ever there was an example of a pass being legal out of the hand, it’s yesterday. Why? Because Tom literally pushed his arms out to throw the ball around another defenders arms/head. It was obviously back from the way he flicked his wrists to wedge the ball between the space. No mention of that from the commentators. Under the rules, Tom’s pass was legal.

 

[frank stokes]

You know what’s interesting about the forward pass rule…commentators and spectators alike, seem to forget the rule concerns ‘out of the hands’ not ball trajectory from one point to the next.

I can see from the replay that it floats forward but If ever there was an example of a pass being legal out of the hand, it’s yesterday. Why? Because Tom literally pushed his arms out to throw the ball around another defenders arms/head. It was obviously back from the way he flicked his wrists. No mention of that from the commentators. Under the rules, Tom’s pass was legal.

I agree but this is why I hate the forward pass rule - incredibly hard to tell if a line ball (or forward travelling) pass was backward “out of the hand”…
Much prefer to judge it on where it was thrown and where it was taken and then it could be judged on replay just like offside is…

 

[LeonardCohen]

I agree but this is why I hate the forward pass rule - incredibly hard to tell if a line ball (or forward travelling) pass was backward “out of the hand”…
Much prefer to judge it on where it was thrown and where it was taken and then it could be judged on replay just like offside is…

Yeah I’m inclined to agree. It’s ironic though because the rule was brought in to mitigate angles that can skew perception. All it actually does is create a new conundrum as to what’s backwards out of the hands?

 

[frank stokes]

Yeah I’m inclined to agree. It’s ironic though because the rule was brought in to mitigate angles that can skew perception. All it actually does is create a new conundrum as to what’s backwards out of the hands?

Like most rules it has had a poorly considered consequence…
The concept that players “can’t” throw a pass backwards at pace is just total BS derived by the NRL to increase the speed of the game at any cost and create more tries…
NRL has no issue with judging if both feet were behind the kicker despite wingers often being 20m from the kicker and cameras being on “skewed” angles…