News NRL to investigate Bulldogs vs Eels game.

[spiritofaslan]

News / Live Score Link

https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl-premiership/nrl-2020-bulldogs-vs-eels-round-12-results-maika-sivo-forward-pass/news-story/db8db2811218c60ddb8fea3860b21f7d

• August 2, 2020 8:00pm
• Source: FOX SPORTS

NRL to investigate an Eels’ pass that could have set up a grand stand finish against Bulldogs

The NRL will investigate Eels winger Maika Sivo’s final play in Sunday’s win over the Bulldogs, reports The Sydney Morning Herald.

The Eels led 18-16 and in the final seconds of the game, Sivo threw what looked to be a forward pass over the sideline, which should have seen the Bulldogs awarded a penalty and given them a chance to level up scores and take the game into golden point.

Sivo collected a Lachie Lewis kick and ran towards the sideline before he deliberately threw it out. Replays then showed the pass was forward.

Referee Chris Sutton spoke to sideline official Belinda Sharpe but both weren’t in position to make a confident call so Sutton blew the whistle to call full time.

“Hold on Waz... it was close that he threw the ball out and it nearly went forward. It would have been a deliberate forward pass,” Fox League commentator Michael Ennis said.

Wests Tigers utility and former Bulldog Josh Reynolds was penalised in 2014 for a similar offence when he threw a deliberate forward pass while running the clock down in the first half of a match against the Titans.

NRL head of football Graham Annesley will have more to unpack from Sunday’s match between the Bulldogs and Eels.

The Bulldogs looked to have scored their first try of the match when Marcelo Montoya crossed over in the corner only for an obstruction to be called. However, replays showed that Mitchell Moses had made a defensive decision and unfortunately for the Bulldogs they chose not to challenge the call.

Ennis believes it was a blunder on the referee’s behalf and Annesley will need to “ask questions” of him.

“There was a moment in the first half where I think Graham Annesley is going to have to ask questions of referee Chris Sutton,” he said.

“The line-run on the edge from (Raymond) Faitala-Mariner and Mitchell Moses made a clear defensive decision to come in on Faitala-Mariner and Montoya scored in the corner. It would have taken the game to 6-4 or 6-all at that stage. Parramatta ended up going on with it in the back end of that half but that was a big moment.

“Kieran Foran was spoken to by Chris Sutton and said ‘do you want to challenge it?’ Foran didn’t do that so the onus was on the captain but at the same time, time and time again we see these checked particularly in try-scoring moments and it was a clear blunder. I expect that something will be said about it tomorrow (in Annesley’s weekly review).”

 

[spiritofaslan]

I honestly think they need to start having a look at the bank accounts of some of these officials.

There's innocent mistakes, but there's also blatantly obvious mistakes.

Not to mention a conflict of interest having a family of 3 heavily involved in positions that can influence the end result of a game.

 

[Nutboy]

Unfortunately I remember Josh's well...think I made the most posts in a minute hahaha

 

[boxer]

So not only did they not allow a try, but also didn’t allow us to level the game.
Hmmm nothing sus there.

 

[K E]

Whaaaat? The corrupt nrl making bullshit decisions? Glad I was sitting down...

Is the a more punchable face than MIAtchell Moses's? He has that cunt face.

 

[ASSASSIN]

Nrlol and the betting agencies need an ICAC investigation

 

[spiritofaslan]

https://www.nrl.com/news/2020/08/03/graham-annesley-weekly-football-briefing---round-12/

Live Stream of Refs Weekly review just started (2PM) ... be VERY interesting to see if a) it gets covered at all ; and b) what he says.

I reckon he'll say:
Ball over sideline "Ref got that one wrong, but they couldn't see and video ref cant rule on forward passes"
Obstruction "penalty called before try scored so captain had to challenge".

 

[spiritofaslan]

I'll update with entire presser as im taking short notes.

 

[spiritofaslan]

Paraprhased transcript.

Stream started and Greame talks about there will be no stats from this week as there is a bit to get through. He is doing it outside of the normal professional setup with an NRL background, and potentially from a home office or scaled down studio via zoom.

In total 8 incidents are covered, with a breakdown of 3 calls INCORRECT, 4 calls CORRECT, and 1 call UNCERTAIN.

BULLDOGS VS EELS (2 incidents reviewed)
Starting with the obstruction no try, Greame mentioned he was looking at the lead up contact between Moses (EELS) and Raymond Faitala-Mariner (BUL). He states the outcome was a try claimed by Marcelo Montoya. Upon reviewing in slow motion he notes that RFM was free on the outside shoulder of Foran to run through. Moses was almost in front of RFM already squaring up to tackle, and tackles RFM on suspicion as the ball goes out the back. He deems this is NOT an obstruction, and that it was a poor defensive read by Moses.

He then highlights that the referee has made the decision to blow a penalty before the try is scored, and that a safety first response SHOULD have been taking, allowing play to continue until the end of the play, and then sending the decision to the bunker to review.

Greame states he is confident if the decision was sent to the bunker, a try would have been awarded as it would be ruled a poor defensive read. He states this decision was INCORRECT.

A question is then asked by a reporter regarding if an eict should be sent out to players stating the onus is on them with such defensive reads.

Greame says that "if the referee had his time again, he should have let it play out, as he can always go back and check later on". He again confirms that it wasn't the right decision and said he'd have given the referee 100 out of 100 had he let play continue, as that was the correct call.

Another question is asked about if additional reminders will be sent out to referees, and he mentions that referees "dont need any instructions from Bernard Sutton or me to get these decisions right, they already have the tools to check these things and should be using them".

A final question is asked about "will you speak to the club regarding this decision, given how close the end of the game was, and how it could have impacted the end result". He simply states that he hasn't spoken to the club, and it's not his position to do so, but rather Referees Coach Bernand Sutton will do that if required, and that he rarely deals directly with clubs as he is Head of Football.

He finishes off almost missing the forward pass incident, before going back to it.

He states that the query was if the ball was passed forwards. In slowing it down he observes that the ball seems to take a banana like curve forwards, despite Sivos hands pulling backwards towards his own line. He says he can't explain why that would happen, but going back to the original point the ball is released notes the referee and touch judge are in front of the play given the kick went downfield, and he would't blame them for an incorrect call in this instance, as it would have been difficult to rule on.

Greame goes on to state that it was not a pass, but rather the ball being tossed forwards, and it was hard to say if it went forwards. He notes Sivos right arm after releasing the ball drags across his body towards his own goal line, and that it would be a tough decision for officials to rule on.

He ends the stream by saying he can't criticise the officials in this instance and WILL LET PEOPLE MAKE UP THEIR OWN MIND ON THAT ONE, before confirming though that it was not a pass.

OTHER INCIDENTS REVIEWED

DRAGONS VS RABBITOHS (2 incidents reviewed)
1st incident was a try awarded to Frizzell. There was a question raised about separation and grounding by Frizzell. Slow motion confirms the decision was correct as forearm doesn't leave ball once connected. CORRECT DECISION.

2nd incident was Alex Johnston deemed out by sideline official before offloading. Slow motion confirmed he was actually in at time of passing, however Greame conceeds that the sideline officials view was obstructed, and despite being an INCORRECT DECISION, it was understandable given the situation, and the players could have challenged it.

WARRIORS VS TIGERS (1 incident reviewed)
During the game there was a collission between Katoa (WAR) and Lawrence (TIG). Katoa was penalised for challenging Lawrence in the air for the ball, however slow motion confirmed that Lawrence climbed AFL style up on Katoa, and both players were only looking at the ball. INCORRECT DECISION.

MANLY VS PENRITH (1 incident reviewed)
During the game there was a collission between Martin (PEN) and Elliott (MAN). Martin was not penalised for challenging in the air for the ball, as slow motion confirmed that both players were only looking at the ball. CORRECT DECISION.

ROOSTERS VS TITANS (2 incidents reviewed)
Both incidents looked at were deemed CORRECT DECISIONS and were intereference based.
1st one Tedesco (ROO) interferes with Brimson (TIT), preventing a try scoring opportunity. Brimson and Tedesco both miss the ball and Don (TIT) grounds it to score. Tedesco was not sin binned and that was questioned. Greame explains that this would be double jeopardy given a sin bin would be for a professional foul in a try scoring opportunity, however the try was scored anyway so no disadvantage to Titans, and sin binning him would be a double punishment to Roosters effectively.

2nd one was Kelly (TIT) tackling Manu (ROO) on suspicion before he got the ball. Whilst Kelly loses contact with Manu before the ball is received, the contact causes Manu to lose the ball in a try scoring opportunity and knock on. Kelly was sin binned and people questioned the inconsistency.

.........

So in summary the obstruction no try call was WRONG, and the final play wasn't a pass, so not sure where that leaves it.

 

[boxer]

So Sutton brothers strike again! not try for a obstructing and a deliberate forward pass was ok.
Now that we got punished by losing 2 competition points what do the ref get for fucking us up?
Nothing but it was the wrong call.

How can an organisation like the NRL admit they made the wrong call yet punish the team that meant to win?
So in other word NRL doesn’t care about clubs but care about refs only.

 

[TDS-Reporter]

NRL Head of Football Graham Annesley has conceded the Bulldogs were denied a possible try to Marcelo Montoya in the first half of the side's narrow two-point loss to the Eels on Sunday.

Continue reading...

Feed via Bulldogs.com.au

 

[Captain Ibis]

can't do much about it now, unfortunately... would have been awesome for Monty to get a double the poor lad

 

[Old Woof Woof]

So Sutton brothers strike again! not try for a obstructing and a deliberate forward pass was ok.
Now that we got punished by losing 2 competition points what do the ref get for fucking us up?
Nothing but it was the wrong call.

How can an organisation like the NRL admit they made the wrong call yet punish the team that meant to win?
So in other word NRL doesn’t care about clubs but care about refs only.

No more like the NRL and refs had their money "indirectly" on the betting with a 13 plus win to the eels . Look at the penalty count so lopsided . Look at how many resets the Eels got into our 30 metre line. Look at how many offsides the eels had when we were trying to get out of 20 metre line.
When you add this up it was so blatant and obvious the referee was trying to get a big score out of the eels but the dogs hung on and made it tight despite all the opposition so he had to try everything to get the eels over the line a few more times.
I said years ago when they introduced betting on games it would be the worst decision because it would lead to corruption and cheating in games and I was right.