NRL Issues of contention Round 1

Round one of the NRL for 2012 is not yet over and there are already contentious issued that need to be sorted out by the new Commission as soon as possible.

The first talking point is one that I have previously raised and is one I will not let up on until it is changed. That is  "Golden Point" extra time.  In the first round there have already been 2 games decided this way and the second between the Tigers and Sharks puts into perspective why it needs to be changed.  The Tigers were able to get into a position to kick a field goal, thanks to an incorrect call by the refs and sideline officials.  The Sharks were penalised for being in an offside position from the kick after a charge down.  Unfortunately this is not a penalty and the NRL courtesy of Bill Harrigan have admitted that this was the wrong call.  What this wrong call did though was affect the result of the game. Will the two points make a difference at the end of the season?  I still put it to the NRL that if they want extra time, then have the full allotted time played out so the better team wins, not the team that is the luckiest.  Yes I agree that bad decisions during the normal course of the game but it is exaggerated more in extra-time as many refs will not blow the whistle at all if a team is in an attacking position and that penalty can decide the game.  It makes it more frustrating that there were four officials on the field and one in the stands and not one of them knew the rule.  Also no comments were made by the commentators as well.  Surely the NRL and broadcasters ensure that their staff are up on the rules and know them back to front to ensure that they don't end up with egg on their face the next day.

The second talking point is diving or feigning injury.  Scott Prince denies it but the way he stayed down after the hit, be it late or not, was only done to milk a penalty.  If he was as injured as he showed or claimed then he would not have been in a position t then kick the penalty, it seems the Titans have possession of the magic sponge.  NRL markets itself as a tough game, surely this is a line it does not want to go down.  If it does, it has to expect the criticism that gets levelled at football (soccer) players and AFL players that will hit the floor at the drop of a hat if they think there is a penalty in it. 

Thirdly and last of all is the hit Frank Pritchard is on report for.  Now the so-called experts are saying that they think it is a fair hit and the penalty on the field is sufficient. It should not matter how a hit is done if the contact is high it is a high shot. At no point did Pritchard try and wrap his arms in the tackle, which is an indication that it was a front on shoulder charge.  If a player wants to tackle with their shoulder then they run the risk of the penalty if it goes wrong. If he gets off and this is what Canterbury are pushing for, then the club must go the whole season without complaining about any similar incident that injures one of their players.  With Hasler coaching though, I find it impossible to believe that the Bulldogs won't be doing any complaining.

You may not agree with my points and I respect your opinion, that being the case if you disagree with what I have raised, explain the reason and be accept that I may not agree.