BHQ Round 7 - the biffo

[Coxy]

Wasn't there (injured) but apparently the guys got a 6-all draw, which is a moral victory given how our opponents apparently went out of their way to smash everybody, including little 15 year old Luke in our team. And then they carried on a treat after the game having a go at the referee about everything.

Most worrying for me is it was my rep coach doing most of the carrying on. I'll have a chat with him about that next time I see him.

Good work guys, that's a good team so to share the points with them is excellent.

 

[Ghibli]

Paul is a deadset **** muncher! For him to be carrying on like that at the ref after the game is a real blight on the competition. Especially when the "Rep Coach" doesn't know how to interpret rules depending on the context!

Straight from the Official rule book champ:
Section 4 - Note: The referee should consider advantage play prior to penalising. Penalties may be awarded at the point of the infringement in the following circumstances:-
In the context of the event in question, Subsection 9
9. A defending player, must in the referee’s opinion, be attempting to remove a tag and not deliberately impeding the progress of the ball carrier or any attacking player with their body. If an attacking player’s progress is impeded, with or without the ball, a penalty may be awarded.



The bloke is an idtiot, carrying on stating that Oztag is a non-contact sport, and that ANY contact MUST be immediately penalised. He even thinks penalties must be awarded even when the defender (him) is the person to be penalised, and the play has gone 5 meters beyond him, and the player with the ball is on his way to an unchecked try line - PAUL YOU **** HEAD, IT'S ADVANTAGE PLAYED. No worries Paul, let the ref blow a penalty, stop our player scoring a certain try, bring it back to the point of your infringement, let your team set their defensive line **** HEAD.

Yes, the intent of Oztag is 'Non-Contact', that doesn't mean that contact won't occur, if it does, a penalty may be awarded (depending in the context of the incident). Then for another player in their team (who is also a ref for this comp) to say to me "I've got your number mate", well good on you tosser! What difference will that make? If you referee me in a biased or prejudiced manner in the future, I'll report you to Troy and explain the full story.

To be honest, I feel for that ref tonight, he's a great ref (the older bloke), sure he may not keep up with the play - especially if there's a break - but he doesn't miss much, and lets the games flow well. For him to be copping constant mouthing off at every decision that the other team doesn't agree with (during and after the game), must've been really annoying.


In relation to the bloke that smashed Luke, well that's Hammo's "friend" who sent him off and current ref - pretty low form.

 

[Ghibli]

Back onto the game, we were excellent tonight, strong games by Stu, Andy, Ryan and Grant (I think that's his name). Just a few little defensive lapses, I was pleased how we defended when they were coming off their line.

 

[Coxy]

Yeah mate, I can totally understand your feelings on this. I said sort of as a throwaway comment in the Facebook group that if you get Paul riled up he'll lose the plot. Certainly did! And you're right when he's like that he totally forgets how the game is played and refereed, which is bad given his status as a coach and ref.

Did I mention he's playing and coaching us this tournament coming up? Our captain had an issue with it and spoke to him about it, and it was exactly this issue. That if things get heated in the game he'll lose his head and be no good to us.

Is it worth me sending Troy an email outlining what happened from our point of view? Particularly the "I've got his number" stuff? Do you know the number of the guy who said it?

I won't ask Troy to do anything, just to be aware of the issues.

 

[Ghibli]

Nah I found it quite funny about the number thing. If the bloke referees me in any other way than any other player, yep I'll get you to raise it with Troy.

Stu or Ryan can give the more in-depth explanation of what happened, basically Paul collided with a support player. And stated that a penalty MUST immediately be awarded (and to us due to him being that cause of the collision). That means that I could, in the event that someone gets by me, run into one of their support players, and we get a penalty - hell I've saved a certain try, and it's only a penalty. Surely he must understand the Advantage rule, and how to referee and apply the laws of the game depending on context and discretion. The rule book appears to me, as giving ref's some room to apply the intent of rules, especially with words like 'may' contained within. I know this area - I write Governance and Management Frameworks for a large Government organisation, I effectively write rules/policies as my job. For sure, some rules will have prescriptive elements such as MUST, ONLY etc. but Pauly boy this isn't one of them!

 

[Coxy]

Yeah absolutely, the rules are 99% about advantage to the attacking team. It's why the advantage rule can basically be applied such that something happens 5 metres out from your own line and you make a break and get tagged 5 metres out from scoring, the ref will bring it all the way back and award the penalty where it happened.

If the try was scored, it's awarded.

Seriously, Paul doesn't think when he gets like that. And he embarrasses himself.
I reckon he'd be at home now thinking he was over the top in this case. I'll see, I reckon he'll probably apologise to me next time I see him.

 

[Ghibli]

Not being a ref, say your scenario eventuates (sorry getting off topic). What do you do in your scenario if the player doesn't score:
1. Award the penalty all the way back at your own line (5 meters out), or
2. Continue play all the way up on your try line and continue the tackle count?

Personally as a player (and if I was a referee) I would prefer option 2... Yes an infringement occurred, but your advantage is the field position IMO. Say the next tackle your team dropped the ball, I think option 2 is a better scenario, they wouldn't have the good field position...

 

[Coxy]

Yeah true, but the way we're trained to award advantage is to go back to where the penalty should be awarded, the advantage being a new set. I'd probably decide based on what tackle in the count it was. If it was the first, I'd say play on. If it was the 4th or 5th, take it back to the original penalty.

 

[Hamm.0]

Firstly, I had an attacking shocker tonight. I used up a heap of energy making tags and lost the plot on two attacking plays straight after the 2nd half kick off, one cost us a try.

I am happy with my defence tonight, one blunder which could be attributed to me in defence was when I didn't trust Mike in defence and strayed from my outside man which caused enough space for my guy to get a killer ball away to his winger, however I stayed on Paul as much as I could and he got very fustrated with being unbale to do anything.

They got off to a good start tonight, however they had some easy tries which were nothign special and when the playing got tough, they burnt themselves. We simply stuck in there and pulled an ugly draw out, which could have easily gone to us with a few breaks we made and couldn't make the final play/get over the line.
**********************************************************************************************
Now, back on the whinges;

Ghilbli; I'm pretty sure when old mate said "I've got his number" he was actually referring to the fact he had you marked. Similar to me saying "I got, he's nothing" or Tee saying; "he won't pass, never does", etc. It wasn't meant to be as insulting as you seem to have taken it, the guy was just riling you up, and in fairness we are good at sledging as well. Best thing is, tonight we didn't have to [icon_lol1. LOLZ!!!

Coxy; I haven't mentioned this to you before, because I know you are all Oztag ref buddies, etc. But Shane is the guy who sent me off and I had my big verbal stout with last season. He is a winner that guy, let me explain what happened that time;

Situation; Hammo gets sent off, gives ref an expletive. After game Ref asks another player for Hammo's name. Hammo jumps in and tells name himself and asks for Ref's name. Ref uses expletives at Hammo. Hammo thanks ref for his kind words and reminds ref he has just used said words in front of 4 teams 9next game as well) and another ref. Even other team then jump in and tell ref he is an idiot and disagree with his method of officiating. Ref runs to organiser (Troy) and tells his version of events. Hammo sees this, walks up to organiser and ref, explains his version of events. Organiser asks Hammo what he thinks will rectify the situation. Hammo says he's happy to leave it here and offers to shake hands with ref. Ref looks away and begrudgingly shakes hand whilst looking away, then turns walks 2 metres, turns back and says; "but you got two weeks" and walks off. Hammo taken back with how pathetic that was, turns to organiser and asks who's running the rockshow. Organiser says will sort out at later date, next time organiser sees Hammo, he says forget about it.

Now in this game, the first time I have crossed paths with Shane since that incident, not only did he not even have the balls to look at me when he shook my hand after the game tonight, he wasn't even going to shake my hand at all!! I had to catch him to shake. Loser...it's beer comp Oztag FFS, get a life.

The moment of vindication for me tonight was watching Shane run his very ample figure into Luke and jaw off at the ref repeatedly (both during and after the game). This is the guy who sent me (the captain of my team) from the field for saying; "what's the penalty count Sir". [icon_lol1. [icon_lol1. [icon_lol1. [icon_lol1. [icon_lol1. Pot.Kettle.Black.

As for Paul, he was heavily marked by us all night, we all know who he is and he was simply frustrated. I have to chuckle how half these guys think they are Oztag. LOLZ. If Oztag was played by more people and therefore more athletic people took it seriously, half these jokers would be in E grade comps constantly, they are nothing special and it obviously burns them. Paul's post game actions tonight were simply ridiculous and IMHO if any normal person (non Northside Oztag affiliated player) carried on like he did tonight, they would be suspended and rightfully so.

As for "the incident" that Ghilbli is talking about, what I don't understand is;

a) in every single game on Earth (that I know of anyway) the attacking team is allowed advantage.
b) the collision was between Paul (the defender) and an off the ball support player. Defender was not impeded from making a tag (Paul was snapped and beaten clean) and support player wasn't really going to be in a position to receive a pass from the attacker with the ball....and in fact wasn't needed as attacker scored. How or why would anyone bring that back for a penalty to anyone?

At the end of the day, Paul's behaviour after the game was worthy of a suspension and Shane proved he was the douche I thought he was. Glad we beat them and the next game against them will be heaps fun.

P.S. Beer grade Oztag...LOLZIPOPS!!!!

 

[Coxy]

Haha nice. Mate, that's funny...Shane plays in my rep team, and Paul is the coach (and player)...you've made my life interesting at training in a couple of weeks! LOLZIPOPS!

 

[Ghibli]

Well said Hammo! Fair enough about the number thing - as I said not really an issue, but funny at the same time. In relation to sledging, I agree at times we sledge, but we do not go out there instigating it. It only seems to me that we go back at the other team if they start on us.

How can Shane be in a rep team? Seriously... he had nothing special. I can see why Paul is, he's quick, got a good spin and defends well, but Shane was one of their worst players tonight. But as Hammo said, they think they are Oztag, therefore they think they can do or say whatever they want and not have the same consequences as if you or I did / said those things.

 

[Hamm.0]

Yes I agree, Paul is a great player, he was heavily marked tonight. Shane I have an agenda against, so will not comment on.

For mine, they had a guy, can't remember number, played on their right all night, square haircut (similar to an AJ or Police haircut), about 30-35ish. He was their best IMO. And he didn't sledge at all.

P.S. I agree, we only sledge once sledged, but we give it back hard. Not a bad thing.

 

[Ghibli]

and P.S. Hammo, we didn't win...

 

[Coxy]

Well said Hammo! Fair enough about the number thing - as I said not really an issue, but funny at the same time. In relation to sledging, I agree at times we sledge, but we do not go out there instigating it. It only seems to me that we go back at the other team if they start on us.

How can Shane be in a rep team? Seriously... he had nothing special. I can see why Paul is, he's quick, got a good spin and defends well, but Shane was one of their worst players tonight. But as Hammo said, they think they are Oztag, therefore they think they can do or say whatever they want and not have the same consequences as if you or I did / said those things.

Shane knows he's not that great. His fitness lets him down more than anything.

 

[thedman]

Yeah - agree with all of that. Paul was acting like a massive sook. From my point of view what happened was Stu made an awesome break and i was running support, Paul missed Stu's tags and after missing the tag, we smashed into each other. I didn't see anything wrong with it. He had a bit of a winge and then i offered my hand and helped him up. that should have been the end of it, but he carried on and on.

On to the game - I thought we played really well again last night and apart from some bad defensive reads (i was guilty of), we outplayed them. we seem to be very dangerous when we run plays off the half back and have support runners there, backing up the ball runner. Well done guys.