Why wasn't Teddy's challenge valid?

[ism22]

It meant nothing but in my mind:
- The player wasn't held (if he was, the ref called it too early)
- Teddy asked to challenge it (then was told 10 seconds were up...
- Sutton was clearly heard overturning the bunker after they called '[player] goes into touch before he is effectively held'. Sutton then yelled 'no no no I called held before that so you can't do that!!!'
- Bunker then said 'challenge is maintained because it is not a valid challenge'.
[All paraphrased, of course]

When I think about it, the Storm (and other teams playing against us) are often told 'heeeeld... releeeeeease... [then it's a penalty if they keep holding on for say 5 seconds after that]. What does 'held' really mean given this happens every week? Also, why can't the Bunker say 'actually in our opinion he wasn't held so the on-field call of held was incorrect'.

Not worth $40k but IMO this whole situation was a bit of a farce. Also, the lower-tech mic setup (with everything going directly to home viewers coz they can't isolate it) demonstrated that the Bunker takes instructions from the ref (and listens to them). Is this how the system's supposed to work, or should the ref be told to shut up once the challenge goes through?

ALSO... who decides what the scope of the challenge can be? It seems as though there are times when the Bunker says 'not ruling on that obvious error because we can't' and times when it rules on such things despite them being well beyond the scope of what's being challenged. Sigh... I hate the Bunker! Except when it's telling Whitehead to stop doing those dodgy strips.

[ROC181]

Because Sutton had called held before the raiders player got shoved out.

[Thirteen]

Why didn’t Ropana’s shoulder charge get penalised?

[roostermcgregor]

Because Sutton is God and when he calls "held" (even if the players momentum isn't stopped) that's where the play stops.
So I understand what Teddy was trying to do was challenge the call that he wasn't held, his momentum wasn't stopped , therefore get the ruling reviewed.
Unfortunately, that's something the bunker can't decide on - an "unreviewable" challenge.
They all made a joke of it on channel 9 - and Teddy looked a bit of a goose , but no harm done, it is "unreviewable" so we don't lose the benefit of a Captain's challenge.
IMO the decision was really just a tactic of Sutton to give the Raiders a leg up , and to help them get back into the game - but even though he was helping them out , they still self imploded as the match wore on.
I really think Sutton could see that during the course of the game - so he stopped his usual vendetta against us, because it was pointless, and made decisions fairly for a change.

[NorfolkStreetKid]

That call of held was bullshiit... totally.... and when Canberra did exactly the same thing to Keighran.... no call. It's called subconsious bias..... it's there in buckets.

[Johnny Tobin]

Why didn’t Ropana’s shoulder charge get penalised?

This

The next play hadn't started. They were waiting to do a dropout.

That was bizarre.

One the challenge, the problem was that Sutton called "held" way too early. So the decision was technically correct. That garbage about challenging going over the sideline had to do with whether it was a penalty (him going over) or just a play the ball (not going over). It was obvious he went out so Sutton knew it was a waste of time. He was an arrogant tosser over it though.

[zac]

like rmcg said there are some decisions that can't be challenged so, right or wrong, a call of held can't be challenged.
the interesting thing about the episode is that sutton allowed it to go the bunker. he knew the decision on the raiders guy being held or not couldn't be challenged but, like a bit of a smartarse, decided to teach teddy a lesson and change his challenge from being about the raiders guy being held or not to one about whether or not the raiders guy went out even though teddy never challenged the fact that the guy went out.

[rented tracksuit]

Who won?

[Batemans Bay Rooster]

Quite clever how Sutton has sort of got it off onto the tangent that he has. Now the fact that the player wasn't held and so shouldn't have been called held - is kind of a side issue. When really it's the only issue.

[Cockadoodledoo]

Why didn’t Ropana’s shoulder charge get penalised?

That was bizarre, Sitili is shoulder charged after he kicks the ball, CNK runs it touch in goal. They look at the replay and put Rapana on report and Canberra then take a drop out. Why didn't Ennis blow up about it at half time? Oh hang on.

[roostermcgregor]

I can understand that you challenge decisions for correctness, when a player is involved in that incident eg fumbles the ball, has a loose carry , etc because that is an error made at the player level, and the bunker intervenes to get the right result.
But the ref making a decision on one of his calls "ie a player is held" or "inisde the 10 , offside" is the refs call , and it stands whether the player was or wasn't held, was actually offside or wasn't - it does not matter., the ref adjudicates and its the end of the story.
Sutton's call that the Raiders player was held was complete BS - the guy was never stationary, so we actually had the right to push him over the sideline.
Teddy saw it that way, but as Sutton had made the "held" call , Teddy could not challenge it.
In my opinion the way channel 9 handled it was pretty distasteful.
Like "hahaha , wink-wink , we know something that the players do not - isn't it funny????"
They are challenging something that can't be challenged.
And just to make it doubly as funny " Hahaha wink - wink , we know that Suttons call is obviously not correct , and the Roosters are right, and Sutton is wro0ng - but Sutton is only doing this to help manage the Raiders back into the match" hahahah , wink - wink , isn't it funny???
Yes, I found the comments and carry on made by Vautin, Slater and Co to be completely distasteful ,and it just demonstrated their ongoing bias and agenda against our team.
There could be kids out there watching, or less sophisticated fans who don't know all the rules, who could have benefitted. Not everyone has football knowledge / IQ of 100%
Would have it have been better to explain to the TV audience what the bunker could have adjudicated on , and why they couldn't in this instance, in some type of factual explanation.
No ,instead we get carry on , laughs and snickering from this ship of fools, true to their usual form.

[zac]

the ref calling held has to be unchallengable cos once he calls held the tackled player will stop resisting. it's like you can't play on when a ref blows the whistle cos of a knock on even if replays show it wasn't a knock on cos the ref blowing the whistle can affect what happens after e.g. cecchin's blowing the whistle in the world cup semi between england and tonga. he got the call right but it would have been smarter to see if a try was scored before blowing the whistle and then it would have been less controversial

[mattyh]

cause it was dumb.