NRL Referees

Bay39er said:
@Noitall

I couldn't agree with you more

Also throw in the fact that after the held call it was ok for the doggies to drive our ball carrier back 15 or so metres on numerous occasions but not ok for us to gang drive a doggie over the sideline
Click to expand...
We drove them back a number of times as well after the held call. the problem was that one of ours continued on and over the sideline. I guess the ref should have called held and bought them all back to the mark rather than accepting the additional pushing for all of them.
 

NZWarriors.com

Remove ads
Bay39er said:
@Noitall

I couldn't agree with you more

Also throw in the fact that after the held call it was ok for the doggies to drive our ball carrier back 15 or so metres on numerous occasions but not ok for us to gang drive a doggie over the sideline
Click to expand...
That was so frustrating to watch, I couldn’t believe they continually got away with driving them back after the held call. Especially since as you said we were pinged for driving them into touch. You often see players penalised when sending a player into touch after the held call but their tactic was very deliberate, Dylan Walker was ropable. Can’t see why when a player plays the ball off the mark and the ref calls them back to play the ball, why the player tackled can’t be promoted to where the held was called? Everything just felt like salt into the wound after the no sin bin call
 
Not sure if this has already been posted in another thread but Andrew Webster has waited until the end of the season to make some comments about what's been happening and he's 100% right. The stakes are lower when trying to get the call right when the Warriors are the recipients.

www.rnz.co.nz

'We're easy to pick on': Sorry not enough for Warriors

Warriors coach Andrew Webster says there are simply too many dubious decisions stacking up against the Warriors.
www.rnz.co.nz www.rnz.co.nz
 
jonesy101 said:
Not sure if this has already been posted in another thread but Andrew Webster has waited until the end of the season to make some comments about what's been happening and he's 100% right. The stakes are lower when trying to get the call right when the Warriors are the recipients.

www.rnz.co.nz

'We're easy to pick on': Sorry not enough for Warriors

Warriors coach Andrew Webster says there are simply too many dubious decisions stacking up against the Warriors.
www.rnz.co.nz www.rnz.co.nz
Click to expand...

But what’s the answer? We continually complain and they say “oh sorry”. Given it’s all based on judgement how do you improve judgement????? The only answer I can think of is using AI in some form 🤔 🫤
 
Bay39er said:
@Noitall

I couldn't agree with you more

Also throw in the fact that after the held call it was ok for the doggies to drive our ball carrier back 15 or so metres on numerous occasions but not ok for us to gang drive a doggie over the sideline
Click to expand...

I think that pissed everyone off as it was obviously a momentum tackle.
 
wizard of Tauranga said:
Question - does Barnett get hit high later in the game if the player was sent off after the RTS shot?

The standard was set around player safety?
Click to expand...
Yeah that was exactly Webster’s reasoning, if there’s not the same punishment dished out consistently, where’s the deterrent? Had Chrichton received the correct punishment, the other player that hit Barnett high may have been deterred and gone a bit lower? We’ll never know. Was just a piss poor refereeing and bunker display overall
 
Apparently the the Rooster's owner & one other ripped into the referee in the States & the NRL are not having that so are retaliating, Fair enough but this overall ban would be a big mistake on the NRL's part. It would confirm what many think - that the NRl is manipulating results
 
Akkerz said:
Apparently the the Rooster's owner & one other ripped into the referee in the States & the NRL are not having that so are retaliating, Fair enough but this overall ban would be a big mistake on the NRL's part. It would confirm what many think - that the NRl is manipulating results
Click to expand...
Hasn’t it always been the case that anyone involved in the game can’t criticise the officials?

It caused a stir when our sponsors did it because the NRL couldn’t sanction them.
 
wizard of Tauranga said:
Hasn’t it always been the case that anyone involved in the game can’t criticise the officials?

It caused a stir when our sponsors did it because the NRL couldn’t sanction them.
Click to expand...
Criticising the referees has always been a no, no. Although the coaches have managed to work around it.

It sounds like now they can't even talk about the officials.

I am not sure how long this will last. Most of the coaches don't have anything else to talk about when they lose. There are going to be controversial decisions that people are going to discuss.

Overall the behaviour on the field is a lot better than 10 years ago when players would rush the referee on nearly every decision. The edict that only captains talk to the referee is a lot better.

I'd like to see the time between the decision and captain's challenge be ruled a bit stricter. Some of them seem to take a lot longer than what was proposed when the rule was first brought in.
 
Akkerz said:
Apparently the the Rooster's owner & one other ripped into the referee in the States & the NRL are not having that so are retaliating, Fair enough but this overall ban would be a big mistake on the NRL's part. It would confirm what many think - that the NRl is manipulating results
Click to expand...
And it was the English referees that they ripped into.
 
snake77 said:
Criticising the referees has always been a no, no. Although the coaches have managed to work around it.

It sounds like now they can't even talk about the officials.

I am not sure how long this will last. Most of the coaches don't have anything else to talk about when they lose. There are going to be controversial decisions that people are going to discuss.

Overall the behaviour on the field is a lot better than 10 years ago when players would rush the referee on nearly every decision. The edict that only captains talk to the referee is a lot better.

I'd like to see the time between the decision and captain's challenge be ruled a bit stricter. Some of them seem to take a lot longer than what was proposed when the rule was first brought in.
Click to expand...
Webster seems to be adept at flat batting journalist questions and ‘not seeing’ anything that happened when asked.

It scratching the ear with the middle finger still allowed?
 
wizard of Tauranga said:
Webster seems to be adept at flat batting journalist questions and ‘not seeing’ anything that happened when asked.

It scratching the ear with the middle finger still allowed?
Click to expand...
On NRL 360 they played an old clip of Hasler going on about not being those who cannot be named.

Who knows the old sly finger might catch on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
    Nobody is reading this thread right now.
Back
Top Bottom