Was only a matter of time...

[RecordBreakingMaroons.]

If Thurston was shit. Pearce is Fatal Diarrhoea.

 

[myrrh ken]

 

[Shorty]

Still not a good enough angle I'm afraid, hence why the try was awarded.
Touch Judge behind should have called it.

 

[LESStar58]

I stopped reading after"Phil Rothfield".

 

[RecordBreakingMaroons.]

One can present any number of photos which purport to illustrate a story.

The angle of the photo shows a foot and a line. The ball of the foot is planted in the field of play. The heel is slightly lifted. Due to the angle, the photo appears to show a foot on the line. The bunker has multiple camera angles including one which would show the exact same moment from Holmes' rear angle. They reviewed all of the angles. The Touchy was close by and had a clear and unimpeded view. You can see him in the footage running along stooping and staring at the line. The Touchy never put the flag up. Indicating that Holmes' foot never touched the line.

 

[RecordBreakingMaroons.]

But of course, NSW loss had nothing to do with them throwing away a 10 point lead and self destructing.

 

[carcharias]

But of course, NSW loss had nothing to do with them throwing away a 10 point lead and self destructing.

 

[myrrh ken]

Still not a good enough angle I'm afraid, hence why the try was awarded.
Touch Judge behind should have called it.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

Which one do you disagree with in particular?

Don't agree with the we wuz robbed sentiment of the article, but a lot of refs calls did go against the blues and were wrong.

The Maloney penalty, the strips and the try come to mind.

* Maloney certainly earned that penalty against him - stupid stuff from him. Slater isn't looking at him at point of contact.

* The strips were both deliberate stripping actions - was easy to see.

* The try was legit - there was insufficient evidence to overturn the onfeild - baffles me how people haven't figured this out yet.

Dugan was definitely tackled without the ball but so was Slater and Gillett was run off the ball by the Blues also. Both sides got away with forward passes and both sides got away with slowing down the ruck. The same old fact being though, that good teams overcome decisions that go against them. Refereeing did not even come close to deciding the outcome last night.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

Being selective with frames doesn't work for you.

It does for me though...

 

[RecordBreakingMaroons.]

There were more than one camera angles showing that incident. Fail. Try another example.

Or simply Blue HooHoo.

 

[myrrh ken]

Couldn't find that one. thanks - that's a better comparison. Looks pretty identical to me.

The boots are both overhanging the line. There's no way a touchie or ref can make a call that the underside of the boot is not touching the line unless he was a worm. There's probably 5 mms in it.

Yet one is a try and one is a no try.

 

[myrrh ken]

.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

Couldn't find that one. thanks - that's a better comparison. Looks pretty identical to me.

The boots are both overhanging the line. There's no way a touchie or ref can make a call that the underside of the boot is not touching the line unless he was a worm. There's probably 5 mms in it.

Yet one is a try and one is a no try.

Again - on field decision was try and the bunker had to find sufficient evidence to overturn. They didn't. The process has changed since Hayne's no try in 2009. Back then you didn't have the ref's on field decision to overturn or support. All the ref did was send it up to the video ref for them to rule on.

 

[RecordBreakingMaroons.]

The angle of the photo shows a foot and a line. The ball of the foot is planted in the field of play. The heel is slightly lifted. Due to the angle, the photo appears to show a foot on the line. The bunker has multiple camera angles including one which would show the exact same moment from Hayne's rear angle. They reviewed all of the angles. The Touchy was close by and had a clear and unimpeded view. You can see him in the footage running along stooping and staring at the line. The Touchy never put the flag up. Indicating that Hayne's foot never touched the line.

Rear angle showed it. Playne's heel touched.

 

[myrrh ken]

Again - on field decision was try and the bunker had to find sufficient evidence to overturn. They didn't. The process has changed since Hayne's no try in 2009. Back then you didn't have the ref's on field decision to overturn or support. All the ref did was send it up to the video ref for them to rule on.

But the video refs had benefit of the doubt interpretation back then. The video ref had to find a reason not to award the try.

So essentially it was the same question

http://www.nrl.com/benefit-of-the-doubt-made-clearer-by-nrl/tabid/10874/newsid/53838/default.aspx

 

[myrrh ken]

Rear angle showed it. Playne's heel touched.

That was inconclusive.

We never saw the rear angle of Holmes. You're only guessing that the bunker had a definitive angle of it.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

But the video refs had benefit of the doubt rule back then. The video ref had to find a reason not to award the try.

So essentially it was the same question

http://www.nrl.com/benefit-of-the-doubt-made-clearer-by-nrl/tabid/10874/newsid/53838/default.aspx

And again - benefit of the doubt went to the attacking side every time. Sufficient evidence to overturn gives benefit of the doubt to the on field decision every time So a different question.

Regardless of any of the above - you're still essentially arguing that Homes' try was legit...

 

[RecordBreakingMaroons.]

That was inconclusive.

We never saw the rear angle of Holmes. You're only guessing that the bunker had a definitive angle of it.

No I'm not. They keep a couple of roving cameramen who follow the game along the touch line from middle to either tryline/touch in goal

 

[myrrh ken]

And again - benefit of the doubt went to the attacking side every time. Sufficient evidence to overturn gives benefit of the doubt to the on field decision every time So a different question.

Regardless of any of the above - you're still essentially arguing that Homes' try was legit...

Video refs made inconsistent rulings both benefiting the Morons.

No I'm not. They keep a couple of roving cameramen who follow the game along the touch line from middle to either tryline.

And do you remember seeing that view? I did - it cropped out the feet because the action was too close.

Unless there was another one which we did not see.