2023 NRL Round 27 Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks vs Canberra Raiders, 4:05PM Sunday 3 September @ PointsBet Stadium

[Proud Shark]

I reckon he thought about it when Williams brushed him by when scoring.

Gee PS, it was one of the worst I have ever seen. Dropped him straight on his head. I don't think 5 matches is long enough either.

See above. I completely accept if you think the suspension isn't enough, I just think the grading was spot on as I didn't think it was bad enough to be a straight referral.

 

[BlackWhiteBlue]

I understand throwing the match is illegal and it would start ww3, but what if they rested players and lost that way ???

I know intentionally losing to the Raiders so you can play them again first week of the finals is the cowards way out, but it's also smart, raiders suck lol !

I'm being serious, as a knights supporter I feel bad, I feel like you just made your life harder than it needed to be in the name of honour and ****,

I respect that hell out of that, but it still seems unfair somehow dude ...

Worry about your own team.

 

[MrDravid]

I initially thought he drove him into the ground, on second watch I see it more of a **** up and he kinda falls down on him/with him.

I feel like the straight referrals are generally for the more malicious styles of play.

In saying that, if the grade 3 was 7 weeks I'd think that was fair too. I feel it was a grade 3, and therefore can cop whatever punishment is set for that.

Yeah I think the only thing that saved him was he didn't really finish the tackle off.

Well that and the fact Katoa got straight back up and played on.

 

[BurgoShark]

Gee PS, it was one of the worst I have ever seen. Dropped him straight on his head. I don't think 5 matches is long enough either.

No intent, didn't drive... but did drop him on his head. I'd say it's a tackle that went wrong more than anything else. It's comparable to the Lawton (4 weeks) and Cleary (5 weeks) tackles from last year imo.

Personally, I'd suspend all tackles like this for longer, but at least the NRL are somewhat-consistent with these rulings.

Every time a professional player cops a long suspension for one of these it makes me a little angrier inside

 

[Hughesy215]

Hey guys... I just remembered something and was hopeful someone could explain it to me.

I watched the game while out with my kids for father's day. I could see but didn't have any commentary.

What was the reason our challenge was unsuccessful. It looked like Ramien grounded the ball and then as their player cleared the ruck his foot clipped the ball. What was the justification for it not being a penalty for interfering with the ruck?

 

[HaroldBishop]

Hey guys... I just remembered something and was hopeful someone could explain it to me.

I watched the game while out with my kids for father's day. I could see but didn't have any commentary.

What was the reason our challenge was unsuccessful. It looked like Ramien grounded the ball and then as their player cleared the ruck his foot clipped the ball. What was the justification for it not being a penalty for interfering with the ruck?

If you plant the ball before getting to your feet it's fair game.

 

[Hughesy215]

I didn't like your reply so I went to find it on Kayo.

That is a terrible ruling. The bunker says "At the time that Jesse Ramien puts the ball on the ground his left hand is still touching the ground, this is a ball plant. He then loses possession of the ball. We have a decision"

If that is a correct application of the rules, then the rules are ****. He did "get to his feet" when the ball goes to the ground. He is touching the ground with his left hand and his left and right foot.

Watching it live without sound I didn't understand it. Now I am still confused

 

[Hughesy215]

1 hour and 20 minutes into the Kayo replay if you want to go back and watch it

 

[apezza]

This whole ball plant thing is all on the NRL referring.

They basically let players ball plant all game and it only becomes and issue if a player fumbles it

What happens if players ball plant 4 tackles in a row leading to quicker play the balls and eventually a try? Nothing done about it.

Ball plant should either be allowed or they crack down on all cases. Like not playing the ball facing forwards.

Personally, I hate ball planting. It's lazy and should be penalised (or at least classified as a lost ball and change over)

 

[Sir Chadley]

I didn't like your reply so I went to find it on Kayo.

That is a terrible ruling. The bunker says "At the time that Jesse Ramien puts the ball on the ground his left hand is still touching the ground, this is a ball plant. He then loses possession of the ball. We have a decision"

If that is a correct application of the rules, then the rules are ****. He did "get to his feet" when the ball goes to the ground. He is touching the ground with his left hand and his left and right foot.

Watching it live without sound I didn't understand it. Now I am still confused

Vossy and Flanno were confused as well mate, you aren't the only one.

 

[MMsharks]

I didn't like your reply so I went to find it on Kayo.

That is a terrible ruling. The bunker says "At the time that Jesse Ramien puts the ball on the ground his left hand is still touching the ground, this is a ball plant. He then loses possession of the ball. We have a decision"

If that is a correct application of the rules, then the rules are ****. He did "get to his feet" when the ball goes to the ground. He is touching the ground with his left hand and his left and right foot.

Watching it live without sound I didn't understand it. Now I am still confused

but the NRL NEVER gets it wrong!

according to Graham annesley!

 

[GF78]

I just watched the Raiders match again. They certainly are a Ricky Stuart couched team - so much grappling, second efforts on the ground-bloody, general niggle - exhausting to watch.

Rapanas no try from the second bomb & steal off Tracey. Rapana’s ball carrying forearm hits the the ground which Nicho is tacking him - it allows him leverage / balance to crawl on hands & knees to then attempt to put the ball down - why was it not a penalty for a double / triple movement?

Ref played knock on, so we get a tap on the 10m line instead of kicking for touch?

Serious question.

 

[Pishposh46]

I just watched the Raiders match again. They certainly are a Ricky Stuart couched team - so much grappling, second efforts on the ground-bloody, general niggle - exhausting to watch.

Rapanas no try from the second bomb & steal off Tracey. Rapana’s ball carrying forearm hits the the ground which Nicho is tacking him - it allows him leverage / balance to crawl on hands & knees to then attempt to put the ball down - why was it not a penalty for a double / triple movement?

Ref played knock on, so we get a tap on the 10m line instead of kicking for touch?

Serious question.

Agree, should have been a penalty but they took the easy way out, lesser of two evils.

 

[bort]

I just watched the Raiders match again. They certainly are a Ricky Stuart couched team - so much grappling, second efforts on the ground-bloody, general niggle - exhausting to watch.

Rapanas no try from the second bomb & steal off Tracey. Rapana’s ball carrying forearm hits the the ground which Nicho is tacking him - it allows him leverage / balance to crawl on hands & knees to then attempt to put the ball down - why was it not a penalty for a double / triple movement?

Ref played knock on, so we get a tap on the 10m line instead of kicking for touch?

Serious question.

How would it be a double movement? That is when you score a try after tackle already completed. He never scored a try, he knocked the ball on.

 

[Thresher]

No intent, didn't drive... but did drop him on his head. I'd say it's a tackle that went wrong more than anything else. It's comparable to the Lawton (4 weeks) and Cleary (5 weeks) tackles from last year imo.

Personally, I'd suspend all tackles like this for longer, but at least the NRL are somewhat-consistent with these rulings.

Every time a professional player cops a long suspension for one of these it makes me a little angrier inside

It reminded me of a Darren Peachey tackle where he did this weird scissor things with his hands, hardly made contact, but the player he was tackling went up in the air and landed on his head.

 

[BurgoShark]

I just watched the Raiders match again. They certainly are a Ricky Stuart couched team - so much grappling, second efforts on the ground-bloody, general niggle - exhausting to watch.

Rapanas no try from the second bomb & steal off Tracey. Rapana’s ball carrying forearm hits the the ground which Nicho is tacking him - it allows him leverage / balance to crawl on hands & knees to then attempt to put the ball down - why was it not a penalty for a double / triple movement?

Ref played knock on, so we get a tap on the 10m line instead of kicking for touch?

Serious question.

Agree, should have been a penalty but they took the easy way out, lesser of two evils.

How would it be a double movement? That is when you score a try after tackle already completed. He never scored a try, he knocked the ball on.

Yeah - that's how I interpreted that one. Can't penalise for double movement because he didn't ground the ball.

The most technically correct ruling would have been a "cribbing" penalty.

 

[BurgoShark]

I didn't like your reply so I went to find it on Kayo.

That is a terrible ruling. The bunker says "At the time that Jesse Ramien puts the ball on the ground his left hand is still touching the ground, this is a ball plant. He then loses possession of the ball. We have a decision"

If that is a correct application of the rules, then the rules are ****. He did "get to his feet" when the ball goes to the ground. He is touching the ground with his left hand and his left and right foot.

Watching it live without sound I didn't understand it. Now I am still confused

Bunker official said the wrong thing. Planting your free hand is what players are supposed to do.

Comes down to your interpretation of what constitutes a player having gotten to his feet. Is having one foot flat and the other on his toes "on his feet" or not?

As someone who has spent dozens of hours teaching kids how to correctly play the ball, this one is pretty bloody good. Ramien just makes it look a bit awkward.

https://imgur.com/nYSJEaM

 

[stormshark]

I thought it was a fair call at game speed by the rules, and silly to challenge

 

[GF78]

How would it be a double movement? That is when you score a try after tackle already completed. He never scored a try, he knocked the ball on.

Got you. If Rapana had not dropped the ball & actually placed the ball in the in goal, it would have been a double movement…..we hope.

 

[Western Sharkie]

Hey guys... I just remembered something and was hopeful someone could explain it to me.

I watched the game while out with my kids for father's day. I could see but didn't have any commentary.

What was the reason our challenge was unsuccessful. It looked like Ramien grounded the ball and then as their player cleared the ruck his foot clipped the ball. What was the justification for it not being a penalty for interfering with the ruck?

Stupidity by the Bunker