Annesley confirms Bunker error and Jamal Fogarty’s second try should not have been awarded, and instead a penalty should have awarded to the Wests Tigers for a push in the back on Luke Brooks.
@jirskyr respectfully disagree . You pull out before you make the dive . You just don’t go for it . If you have to leave your feet the risk is too great .
And I don’t want to make out like I know boats , because I never played anywhere near nrl , but I was told the golden rule with charge downs when I was a kid is never lose your feet . You basically take yourself out of the play, and limit if not remove any chance of getting the ball back . So tactically it’s never made sense , and it makes even less sense to dive in 2023 with the rules around contact with the legs . If you gotta dive the risk -reward is too great .Mate staying on your feet makes no difference, that has been made clear enough by the NRL. It's not about diving or staying upright, you can't make any kind of contact now on a bloke in the act of kicking. They are even penalising players now for wrap-up bear-hug style "safe" tackles, there were two last night (Sat night) - particularly the Royce Hunt one on Reynolds.
We just have to accept the new instruction to players is you can shadow but not contact a kicker - it's just too risky to attempt any kind of tackle or charge down. In the mad scramble for field goal defence, I wouldn't even know how to instruct an NRL player now.
Staying on your feet makes a massive difference, you have control of your direction and momentum and can change direction. Once you dive you have lost this ability, you can no longer prevent contact. That is the difference.
Affecting a charge down whilst staying on your feet does not give you adequate control or ability to pull out. Of course it gives you more control than diving, but if you are far enough away from a kicker to pull out of the attempt, you were never going to charge it down anyway. Players don't affect a successful charge down without following through on their run. Additionally now, you can't make any kind of contact with a kicker, even the careful "hug" type tackle where you arrive a tiny bit late and acknowledge this by not decking the kicker. That is why I say it makes no difference.
It used to only be clearly late or clearly dangerous / mid-air legs contact that they outlawed. Royce Hunt on the weekend didn't leave his feet, didn't arrive late, didn't flatten Reynolds, but got done because he touched Reynolds in the air. I don't legitimately think Hunt had enough time to pull up simply because he remained on his feet. I don't even think he had enough time for mental calculations do consider any other action aside from catching Reynolds after making contact.
I think now the only thing that will make a difference is players practising trajectories that don't align with the kicker. You will need to charge down from an angle or from distance, because if you get too close to the kicker (especially early in the kick) then you are a very high chance of making contact. They used to allow a lot of the incidental contact to play on, but not any more.
The reason they used to tell people to keep their feet for a charge down is because you want to regather the ball. There's no point smothering a kick if you fall over and the opposition simply runs back and retrieves it. And in older times, for FG defence you only had to touch the football, not stop it going between the posts.
"Staying on your feet" is not reducing the incidence of penalties for contact with kickers. Royce Hunt stayed on his feet last weekend and still got done.
I'm not saying that you won't get penalized if you stay on your feet, I'm saying that you have a better chance of avoiding contact in the first place if you stay on your feet.
In memory of Geoff Chisholm (1965-2022)
Just watching the replay. In the last play and Brooks attempt at field goal, if Brooks falls over we get a penalty in front as the Raiders player hits Brooks leg on the way through. Inconsistency much.
Again inconsistency in applying the rules. There is contact with Brooks’ legs, should be a penalty.
So what happens to Sutton and the bunker official for stuffing up the Fogarty try?
Annesley confirms Bunker error and Jamal Fogarty’s second try should not have been awarded, and instead a penalty should have awarded to the Wests Tigers for a push in the back on Luke Brooks.
Classic NRL, and classic Tiges.
Glad Sheens mentioned this publicly post match.
We're due about 30 stitch ups to even the ledger.
Annesley confirms Bunker error and Jamal Fogarty’s second try should not have been awarded, and instead a penalty should have awarded to the Wests Tigers for a push in the back on Luke Brooks.
What was the Bunker error?
Just watching the replay. In the last play and Brooks attempt at field goal, if Brooks falls over we get a penalty in front as the Raiders player hits Brooks leg on the way through. Inconsistency much.
I wish he had taken the dive. Would have been a poetic finish to to game
Annesley confirms Bunker error and Jamal Fogarty’s second try should not have been awarded, and instead a penalty should have awarded to the Wests Tigers for a push in the back on Luke Brooks.
What was the Bunker error?
The last Raiders try shouldn't have been awarded.
In memory of Geoff Chisholm (1965-2022)
Not good enough from the NRL. They undertake a forensic review of Joe O put down against the cowboys.
The second try for me is a Shepard. Clearly runs around his player, as below demonstrates.
Third try is confirmed wrong.
Pole makes a break gets the ball stripped out and they get a 7 tackle set.
Even the interpretation on the captains challenge was suspect.
Close games and these calls make all the difference.
AbsolutelyAgain inconsistency in applying the rules. There is contact with Brooks’ legs, should be a penalty.
What was the Bunker error?
They said Brooks had slowed and almost stopped, that’s why the push in the back was ignored. Wrong. As long as he doesn’t change direction Brooks can stop, slowdown or speed up if he wants to. Push in the back is not allowed. No try, Penalty to Wests Tigers.
They said Brooks had slowed and almost stopped, that’s why the push in the back was ignored. Wrong. As long as he doesn’t change direction Brooks can stop, slowdown or speed up if he wants to. Push in the back is not allowed. No try, Penalty to Wests Tigers.
To be honest, he had the right to change direction as well once the ball bounced off the posts. He didn't change direction but it would have been fair to do so.
In memory of Geoff Chisholm (1965-2022)
So what happens to Sutton and the bunker official for stuffing up the Fogarty try?
Not taking action on such a blatant push in the back is a major boo boo. Surely there has to be some action taken on the bunker ref in particular. They need to be dropped and Annesley too. How many times has he admitted to mistakes, it is obvious that under his leadership the “howlers” are still occurring and far too often.
