Darren Smith no-try

[Manu Vatuvei]

On every replay I saw (and I've watched the game twice) it looked like a try to me.

When he first gets to the line the ball touches the chalk.

At the very least, if benefit of the doubt exists, it had to be given.

Does ANYONE agree with me?

 

[Humphrey]

I would have agreed with benefit of the doubt but yehaa the Broncs got beat

 

[Big Mick]

I thought no try to be honest. It was great work from Marshall and it got rewarded appropriately

 

[Scorpio30]

Pretty dangerous thing to do with a shoulder that needs urgent surgery :-k

 

[rabs]

the ball nudged the chalk, definitely the benefit of the doubt should have seen a try awarded

 

[Scott]

No try. I don't think it got a bit of the chalk.

 

[mepelthwack]

No try. Just result.

BOD should favor the defence anyway, unofficially it seems to be at present which IMO is a good thing. Make it official!

 

[NZ Warrior]

It deserved another couple of looks from a different angle. I thought it just scraped the chalk.

Having said that, the Broncos looked shot. The Tigers were always gonna get over them.

 

[PARANoIR]

I agree with the no try. Even the Broncos agreed with it.

 

[Kornstar]

Doesn't there need to be downward pressure? considering the ball was lifting up, even if it did touch the chalk there certainly wasn't downward pressure.

 

[weasel]

I thought it was a try.

 

[lockyno1]

Tough one, but I say no try too. I don't think there was enough of a chance he got the ball down. You can generally tell by Smith's reaction. It was as if he didn't get the ball down!

 

[Twizzle]

I agree that it should have been, but despite having a rule to say we have benefit of the doubt, we don't use it

 

[lockyno1]

I agree that it should have been, but despite having a rule to say we have benefit of the doubt, we don't use it

Yeah but honestly it is one of the worst rules in league! One week they use it, the next they don't! One rule that needs to be scrapped altogether at the end of the year!

 

[HevyDevy]

It looked to me like he certainly touched the line.

As for the benefit of the doubt rule to the attacking side - I don't agree with that rule at all but if that's the rule, which it is, then the try should have been awarded. It was a baffling decision under the circumstances.

 

[kickback]

I thought it was a try, you could see that he was on the line when he got turned over! Having said that the tigers played well and deserved a win.

 

[Andy04]

i think smith trying to put the ball down after he was rolled over was a pretty good indication that he hadnt got it down

 

[JJ]

I thought it just missed the chalk - The thing is, that's what I thought... I can;t definitively say that it didn't, therefore benefit of the doubt should have applied (that's the rule isn't it??)... But then benefit of the doubt is never applied...

Had it been awarded, it could be argued the game could have developed very differently... but the bottom line is teh Broncos had enough chances, and were inept when they made breaks... The Tigers finished all over them, it was pretty embarrassing in the end really

 

[HevyDevy]

That's true too but things like that CAN change a game.

I don't see Smith rolling over as evidence he didn't get it down. He was probably unsure whether or not he made it and was trying to make sure. If the video ref used THAT as evidence he should be sacked immediately.

 

[Pierced Soul]

it touched the chalk. if the teams had been reversed it would have been a try. I've never been one for conspiracy theories but the way the decisions went it looked like they were trying to get the tigers through. No I'm not saying the broncos were robbed -the Tigers were too good however I sensed a distinct touch of favouratism in the decisions