NRL Round 20 Discussion

[Dexter]

They can challenge foul play, which didn't even happen, but the bunker isn't allowed to look at discretionary calls.

How many times have there been markers blatantly not square or people well offside on the goal line, but a team never challenges it or that call is never made on a challenge even if it happens... because if they were allowed to they'd get the call all the time and captains would be challenging them all the time.

The NRL now need to come out and confirm one way or another... if they want to suddenly open it up for markers not square, offside, etc. then it will be a complete shit show... they'll probably just ignore it and hope that it goes away... but teams like the storm would've seen that today and taken notes that marker not square is on the menu.

Also the original rules around the captains challenge included that they couldn't challenge for foul play... because there'd be too many times where a touch is found to be slightly high and the bunker would have no choice but to award the penalty... just like DWZ's today... but NRL decided to ignore that rule in the game we lost to rorters when Teddy challenge on a whim and the bunker found a finger on Tupouniua's chin and gave them a kick to win the game... and now it has seemingly disappeared off the face of the earth.

Although every now and then a bunker will throw out a "the contact is high, but it's incidental"... who even knows what that means, but they've decided to give themselves a get out clause... but only if they decide they want to use it, because it doesn't come out all the time.

I believe they can't challenge discretionary calls as the initial challenge but once they challenge foul play everything in that play is then looked at including offsides etc.
They've been doing it from the get.
I'd like to read the NRL Rule though.
I know they're dumb but they can't be that dumb to rule on something like that if they're not supposed to.

 

[BroncsFan]

I believe they can't challenge discretionary calls as the initial challenge but once they challenge foul play everything in that play is then looked at including offsides etc.
They've been doing it from the get.
I'd like to read the NRL Rule though.
I know they're dumb but they can't be that dumb to rule on something like that if they're not supposed to.

They're not even meant to tell the ref what they're challenging... all they're supposed to do is tell the ref they're challenging whatever call they've made.

A couple years back for cows vs tigers when cows threw out a challenge for a short kick off that they didn't recover ... the challenge was something stupid like cows are challenging the call of full time.

So in today's game all they'd be challenging was that it wasn't a 7 tackle set... I think in the rorters challenge it was something like challenging handover on last.

What would be the point of them challenging whatever they want and then just telling the ref that players were offside.

The challenge system has been around for however long at this point and the bunker has never gone back and overturned the ref for a discretionary call... the ref will tell the bunker what their ruling is on things... i.e. if he doesn't drop it then I've got the markers not square anyway, etc. but the bunker never overturns an onfield refs call in those situations, because they can't.

Even on tries, the bunker never goes back to check that the defence was actually onside at the ptb... because no team is technically ever onside, as they need to have both feet behind the goal line and no one does that anymore.

There's never been a challenge won because the player didn't play the ball correctly, because they never check all those things... but I bet you could get a few tries overturned if you were suddenly making the bunker go back and check that.

That's what the NRL could start opening up, depending on how they deal with this call today.

 

[Dexter]

 

[BroncsFan]

View attachment 34535

And the rest of that rule is below and indicates they've been ignoring their own rules... specifically around foul play, which means the DWZ high shot shouldn't have been possible.

And if the wahs did challenge and claim foul play, then it shouldn't have been sent up, because they can't challenge on foul play that has happened to them.

It also indicates that discretionary penalties cannot be challenged... so why is the bunker reviewing them if they're not meant to be part of the challenge... it goes against a rule they have specifically outlined.

 

[Old Mate]

And the rest of that rule is below and indicates they've been ignoring their own rules... specifically around foul play, which means the DWZ high shot shouldn't have been possible.

And if the wahs did challenge and claim foul play, then it shouldn't have been sent up, because they can't challenge on foul play that has happened to them.

It also indicates that discretionary penalties cannot be challenged... so why is the bunker reviewing them if they're not meant to be part of the challenge... it goes against a rule they have specifically outlined.

View attachment 34536

View attachment 34539

There you go. Discretionary penalties can now be challenged.

 

[BroncsFan]

There you go. Discretionary penalties can now be challenged.

And everyone at the storm celebrated

 

[Dexter]

And the rest of that rule is below and indicates they've been ignoring their own rules... specifically around foul play, which means the DWZ high shot shouldn't have been possible.

And if the wahs did challenge and claim foul play, then it shouldn't have been sent up, because they can't challenge on foul play that has happened to them.

It also indicates that discretionary penalties cannot be challenged... so why is the bunker reviewing them if they're not meant to be part of the challenge... it goes against a rule they have specifically outlined.

View attachment 34536

View attachment 34539

So they must have challenged the charge down or the 20 mtr restart hoping to get everything looked at.
I can't hear what the ref says over Vossies voice.

 

[BroncsFan]

So they must have challenged the charge down or the 20 mtr restart hoping to get everything looked at.
I can't hear what the ref says over Vossies voice.

It's still opening up a can of worms that discretionary penalties on missed field goals are on the menu... the NRL need to shut it down or there will be a lot more games decided by penalties.

Even the foul play shit has just been getting ignored for years at this point.

The NRL should make it that the captain has to nominate what they are challenging and only that element of the play is reviewed.

That will remove any ambiguity, because wahs would've said "we're challenging that foul play occurred"
Ref: "you can't challenge that"
Wahs: "ok we're challenging that he touched it"
Bunker: "he didn't touch it... 20m tap stands and challenge lost"

 

[Morkel]

The even more frustrating thing is that Hasting was square. He was square to the tackle and the ruck. The Warriors player is the one that plays it to the side of Hastings, like countless players are now coached to do in order to take the markers out.

 

[Dexter]

It's still opening up a can of worms that discretionary penalties on missed field goals are on the menu... the NRL need to shut it down or there will be a lot more games decided by penalties.

Even the foul play shit has just been getting ignored for years at this point.

The NRL should make it that the captain has to nominate what they are challenging and only that element of the play is reviewed.

That will remove any ambiguity, because wahs would've said "we're challenging that foul play occurred"
Ref: "you can't challenge that"
Wahs: "ok we're challenging that he touched it"
Bunker: "he didn't touch it... 20m tap stands and challenge lost"

Agree with that. It's bullshit when it happens especially against you.
Didn't Yeo do something similar in SoO 3.
To o drops it but gets hit high Yeo challenges the knock on to get the missed high contact checked but Hudson Young knocks on before the To o knock on so it ends there.

 

[Dash]

You can step around and pick up the ball .
But ,,, you must be square at marker and you can`t dive on the ball / surrender .

Seen the dive in from marker penalised in the past .

Kotoni was not square and dived on the ball .

You are allowed to dive on the ball. You have to then regain your feet, unless you are tackled immediately.

The penalty against Herbie was incorrect, the one against Staggs was correct only if it was for not being square, not for diving on the ball.

 

[Foordy]

NAS facing a two week ban for his elbow to Simpkin's head.

He'll be back for the Storms match against us

 

[Swordfish]

To offset him, can get BTK ready by then?
Reckon he has come back from injury and is playing cup. Let’s hope he gets his acts together in the next 2 weeks & comes into 17 for our trip down grubs land.

 

[Foordy]

To offset him, can get BTK ready by then?
Reckon he has come back from injury and is playing cup. Let’s hope he gets his acts together in the next 2 weeks & comes into 17 for our trip down grubs land.

I think @1910 said he came back in cup over the weekend..

3 runs in 30 mins (or something similar) ...

Unless his team were defending the entire time he was on, he needs to get his ass in gear, because those numbers are unacceptable.

 

[Big Del]

I think @1910 said he came back in cup over the weekend..

3 runs in 30 mins (or something similar) ...

Unless his team were defending the entire time he was on, he needs to get his ass in gear, because those numbers are unacceptable.

Not even just defending .
Modern Game .
If the opposition keep getting to the 6th and have a good long kicking game .
The middles hardly see the ball .
3 or 4 tackles are taken by the back 5 and the middles aren`t even onside yet .
Remember Kobe in early season . Opposition playing in the Broncos half a lot . Hardly saw the ball .

 

[BroncsFan]

I think @1910 said he came back in cup over the weekend..

3 runs in 30 mins (or something similar) ...

Unless his team were defending the entire time he was on, he needs to get his ass in gear, because those numbers are unacceptable.

I think hes been back for a couple weeks now... made it into the extended squad against titans a couple weeks back.

Big frame like his will make conditioning a difficult task, especially when he got an ankle injury

 

[1910]

I think @1910 said he came back in cup over the weekend..

3 runs in 30 mins (or something similar) ...

Unless his team were defending the entire time he was on, he needs to get his ass in gear, because those numbers are unacceptable.

Two games back.

 

[Browny]

And the rest of that rule is below and indicates they've been ignoring their own rules... specifically around foul play, which means the DWZ high shot shouldn't have been possible.

And if the wahs did challenge and claim foul play, then it shouldn't have been sent up, because they can't challenge on foul play that has happened to them.

It also indicates that discretionary penalties cannot be challenged... so why is the bunker reviewing them if they're not meant to be part of the challenge... it goes against a rule they have specifically outlined.

View attachment 34536

View attachment 34539

What is concerning is no journo is even calling them on this