'Why do they need to be there?': Annesley stands firm on blockers

NRL head of football elite competitions Graham Annesley has declared referees won't hesitate to penalise teams that use blockers in front of field goal kickers throughout the final weeks of the season. 

Talking at his weekly football brief, the senior official declared referee Gerard Sutton correctly penalised both Newcastle and Cronulla for the use of blockers before kicks in the dying minutes of Sunday's match. 

Under a rule introduced prior to the start of the season, players must not take up a position near the play the ball and obstruct a defender attempting to put pressure on the kicker. 

Annesley pointed to a number of incidents that were penalised throughout the season and declared referees will not hesitate to blow penalties with the game on the line.

"I've said on multiple occasions throughout the course of the year in these types of situations, if you don't want to take the risk of having a field goal disallowed, don't put these players in this position," he said. "You're inviting the referee to take action. 

"Why do they need to be there? They're clearly not receiving the ball, they know who the ball is going to so why put them there? You open the risk of the goal not being awarded."

In backing Sutton's decision on Sunday afternoon, Annesley reiterated that blockers do not have to make contact with a defending player in order to be penalised.

All that is required for the referee to blow their whistle is for the blocker to force a defender to run around them on their way to the kicker. 

The rules were introduced at the start of the season after extensive consultation with coaches and clubs were given plenty of time in the pre-season to learn what is and isn't allowed.

While some have criticised the implementation of the rules, Annesley said they are black and white and will continue to be policed in such a manner. 

"Blocker, blocker, kicker," Annesley said as he played vision of the Sharks disallowed goal. "Case closed. It's an obstruction. The defenders have to run around or between the players to get to the kicker. 

"It's absolutely consistent. It went both ways, both for the same action. Both with blockers between the ruck and the kicker. If that's dressing it up, then I'll cop it on the chin. It's factual, it's the rules of the game and players and coaches have to abide by those rules or suffer the consequences."

The two penalties weren't the only contentious issues Annesley discussed in a briefing that largely focused on a controversial game at PointsBet Stadium. 

The official recognised Will Kennedy may have been "a step" offside in attempting to charge down Kalyn Ponga's field goal attempt that was ultimately penalised due to a blocker.

Annesley also confirmed a Knights player was in front of the kicker when Newcastle kicked off with six minutes remaining and said the Sharks should have received a penalty on halfway. 

The more controversial moment, however, came in the dying seconds of the first half when Phoenix Crossland was sent to the sin bin for holding down Jesse Ramien as the clocked ticked towards 40.

The decision was labelled "ridiculous" by Knights coach Adam O'Brien but Annesley hit back on Monday afternoon.

"My personal opinion is there is absolutely nothing ridiculous about this decision at all," Annesley said. 

"There's a tackle around the legs. The tackle is complete, the ball is on the ground and the player is on the ground. Crossland has no right to come in and fall on the back of that player trying to get to his feet. He flops on him as he tries to regain his feet, puts his arms around his waist and doesn't let go. 

"If you look at the clock, time has expired. That was exactly the intention [of Crossland], to try and prevent the play the ball from taking place and the Sharks getting one more play from which something or nothing might've come from that. 

"He prevents that from happening. The referee can't allow the play the ball to take place after the siren sounded. You can hear the referee is very clear in his description of why he took this action."