Graham Annesley has conceded a controversial obstruction call that cost Roosters star Joey Manu a fair try against the Panthers was wrong.

 

The NRL head of football has wasted no time conceding that video referee Chris Butler failed to use the necessary level of discretion in incorrectly deeming that Panthers fullback Dylan Edwards was obstructed from defending the no-try due to a collision with Roosters decoy runner Jared Waerea-Hargreaves.

 

The alleged obstruction from Waerea-Hargreaves on Edwards occurred 20-metres away from where Manu grounded the football.

 

The no-try call happened in the 22nd minute with the Roosters trailing 12-0 nil.

 

Instead of waiting until Tuesday’s media briefing to respond to the howler, Annesley stepped forward on Friday morning.

 

Annesley moved to differentiate the call between last weekend’s polarising decision to pull back a Manly try due to Jake Trbojevic running an obstruction against Parramatta’s Luca Moretti.

 

“Last week I supported two obstruction rulings by the Bunker,’’ Annesley said.

 

“I talked about the need for the lead runner to continue through the defensive line, and for the play not to be turned back through the gap created by a collision with a defender.

 

“Neither of these factors were present in last night’s decision (for the Manu no-try).

 

“In the circumstances, the Bunker does have discretion to consider whether a defender could have prevented the try.

 

“In my opinion, the try would have been scored regardless and the on-field decision should not have been overturned”.

 

The Daily Telegraph understands Annesley was comfortable with Butler’s decision to award Sunia Turuva a try for the Panthers even though Liam Martin ran through as the lead runner and interfered with Sitili Tupouniua and Luke Keary as they came across in cover defence.

 

***************

How many calls go Penriths way? It's dead set embarrassing and blatant favoritism. Whether it's 50/50 calls like this or their players not getting suspended 

You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!

Join 1Eyed Eel

Votes: 0
Email me when people reply –

Latest comments

Adam Magrath replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"Alarms going off you reckon?"
12 minutes ago
Adam Magrath replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"Maybe I didn't phrase my comment well post 2026. To be honest I'm not getting too hung up on the storm and what may or may not happen. I'd take Harry Grant or Cameron Munster off their hands, but we all know realistically that ain't happening. If…"
15 minutes ago
Adam Magrath replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"Absolutely, all that stuff that's gone on goes in our favour with the judge in making his determination.
I don't think we're being vindictive at all towards Lomax. We just want to be adequately compensated for our loss which is a fair enough…"
23 minutes ago
Eli Stephens replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"You could potentially ban him from playing against the eels for the term of his contract but how is that fair on the other clubs who have to face Storm who get an origin winger for a 200k transfer. If Lomax really wants to play nrl then open it up…"
28 minutes ago
Hell On Eels replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"Adam, that would be some meeting behind closed doors: us, the NRL, the Storm, some who-me-yes-you poker faces, and enough blowtorches to keep the fire exits relevant."
32 minutes ago
LB replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"Storm either get him this year or not at all, so player swap next year is quite impossible. But I agree I think a swap is hard as Melbourne are that proud in what they are doing they won't have a sense of losing by caving in.
Yeah he ain't sitting…"
47 minutes ago
Eli Stephens replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"I don't think the eels want to keep Lomax out of the game they are open to sending him to any club who wants him. But the way the storm and Lomax acted trying to sneak around it, I doubt eels want to deal with Melbourne. Ryles seems like a man of…"
47 minutes ago
LB replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"Denan Kemp said, and he is right, Melbourne cannot say no to a player of theirs asking for a release again.
The main thing out of this is Melbourne do not give a flying you know what how people see them in this. If they win the comp this year all…"
52 minutes ago
Adam Magrath replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"As much as I'd like Lomax to sit out from the nrl for the next 3 years (and he should) realistically that isn't happening. It isn't fair.
That is what this court case is all about, to determine what is fair. So it isn't 100% right or 100% wrong (or…"
1 hour ago
Eli Stephens replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"He was provided all the legal advice before signing the release and understood the stipulations. Just because R360 didn't eventuate doesn't mean he can force his way out of it lol. Spoilt brat defence is not going to work for Lomax or the storm 🤣 "
1 hour ago
Hell On Eels replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"LB, Eli, good stuff gents. We've acted in good-faith. By the book. With clean hands. Lomax appears not to. Still, equity is not unlikely to view an NRL-wide 3-year restraint until 31Oct 28' as overly-punitive and read it down.
We'd still win,…"
3 hours ago
Coryn Hughes replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"The best thing for the Eels is if we say nothing our position is clear we only have to come back to the table if Melbourne come with something we see as advantageous for us that really is the bottom line.
Best thing about this there the ones doing…"
4 hours ago
Eli Stephens replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"If you look at it from a player for player deal, would you rather Lomax or Howarth if you are the Storm but ? I just don't see any way legally the storm can force the eels to hand them Lomax 🤣 either way don't really care what storm end up doing but…"
9 hours ago
LB replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"I know i have said it before but Storm fans say we are being unreasonable and see no outcome in which we win this case. Despite all the released, that is still the belief. I believe in bias and backing your team but come on.
But i do not think they…"
10 hours ago
Eli Stephens replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"Wouldn't shock me if storm come to the table at the 11th hour with Howarth and the transfer fee. No way in hell they win this in court "
10 hours ago
Hell On Eels replied to Johnny Suede's discussion Lomax legal promise could create salary-cap headache for Storm
"Same, Kurupt. Whatever the outcome, Jim, Beach, Ryles and the club stood united and stood their ground when they were meant to roll over for the Storm and PLV, discreetly. Moses SC has also been brilliant."
11 hours ago
More…

Keaon done deal

As of Thursday, December 11, 2025, South Sydney Rabbitohs forwardKeaon Koloamatangi has reportedly agreed to a deal with the Parramatta Eels, but it is not yet officially announced by the clubs.  Soon to be announced.

Read more…
14 Replies · Reply by Poppa Jan 9
Views: 2092

 

<script src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
<!-- Sidebar -->
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<script>// <![CDATA[
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
// ]]></script>