'16 | R4 | Sat | SYD 20-22 MAN | Allianz

[The Enforcer]

The multiple replays showed Aubusson to be on side and it's hard to understand how the bunker ruled differently.

 

[Maximus]

The multiple replays showed Aubusson to be on side and it's hard to understand how the bunker ruled differently.

No they didn't. You can't conclusively say that his front foot was behind the ball from that camera angle. Without conclusive proof, the decision can't be overturned.

 

[oval]

Roosters fans can whinge till the cows come home, but it's only a 4th round game, not the 2013 final.

That was a REAL shafting.

 

[I Bleed Maroon]

The Roosters are the Titanic at the moment: The sunken giant.

 

[The Enforcer]

No they didn't. You can't conclusively say that his front foot was behind the ball from that camera angle. Without conclusive proof, the decision can't be overturned.

On the Sunday ticket show on Fox, they had a line which showed that Aubusson was on side.

 

[Unscrupulous]

No they didn't. You can't conclusively say that his front foot was behind the ball from that camera angle. Without conclusive proof, the decision can't be overturned.

This "conclusive proof" bullshit needs to stop. The video referee requires "sufficient evidence" to overturn an on field decision and if you can't gather "sufficient evidence" that Aubusson was onside from the shot that was shown then you need to give it away.

 

[Maximus]

On the Sunday ticket show on Fox, they had a line which showed that Aubusson was on side.

Lol the line doesn't prove anything. The angle and the fact his foot is in the air makes that line completely useless.

 

[Unscrupulous]

The Roosters are the Titanic at the moment: The sunken giant.

To keep with the Easter theme I like to think of them as big JC. Bigger than Ben Hur abd currently down and out, but you best believe this holy frieght train will be back with a f**ken vengeance.

 

[Unscrupulous]

Lol the line doesn't prove anything. The angle and the fact his foot is in the air makes that line completely useless.

Lol if anything it exacerbates the optical illusion that the ball is further forward than it actually is. Geometry* you crusty old shitmerkin.

 

[Valheru]

Lol the line doesn't prove anything. The angle and the fact his foot is in the air makes that line completely useless.

Lol ok. You ask for proof which has been given by multiple media outlets and you say it doesn't matter because it doesn't suit your agenda.

Only manly fans think that wasn't a try

 

[The Enforcer]

Lol the line doesn't prove anything. The angle and the fact his foot is in the air makes that line completely useless.

The line doesn't mean anything because of the angle, just LMFAO.

 

[Maximus]

Lol ok. You ask for proof which has been given by multiple media outlets and you say it doesn't matter because it doesn't suit your agenda.

Only manly fans think that wasn't a try

It's not proof at all. It's garbage provided for morons like you to keep the outrage going.

Apparently Aubusson's head was 1.5m in front of his feet. Height doesn't mean anything apparently.

 

[Maximus]

The line doesn't mean anything because of the angle, just LMFAO.

Are you that stupid that you can't work out how a foot in the air would affect an image at that angle?

I assume you also think people are actually touching the tip of the Eiffel Tower as well?

 

[Valheru]

It's not proof at all. It's garbage provided for morons like you to keep the outrage going.

Apparently Aubusson's head was 1.5m in front of his feet. Height doesn't mean anything apparently.

It's a still showing he was onside a according to tge rules of the game, how is that not proof

Not sure what you are going on about with the second part of your post TBH.

 

[Ring Gids]

The important thing is that the Roosters still haven't lost a penalty count in 2016 and have reviewed 8+ penalties every game. Can we bring back the Penalry differential thread again.

 

[bileduct]

LOL, Lattrel's foot is about 10cm off the ground.

Archer is saying the call came from the touch judge and there wasn't sufficient evidence to overrule. If it's the one closest to play then he's deadset made a guess. Look at the angle he has to work with, he's standing behind the play.

 

[The Enforcer]

It's not proof at all. It's garbage provided for morons like you to keep the outrage going.

Apparently Aubusson's head was 1.5m in front of his feet. Height doesn't mean anything apparently.

Have a look at the rule book where it says that it is where your feet are. Your getting deeper into that hole.

 

[The Enforcer]

LOL, Lattrel's foot is about 10cm off the ground.

Archer is saying the call came from the touch judge and there wasn't sufficient evidence to overrule. If it's the one closest to play then he's deadset made a guess. Look at the angle he has to work with, he's standing behind the play.

Talking about Aubussan.

 

[Maximus]

It's a still showing he was onside a according to tge rules of the game, how is that not proof

Not sure what you are going on about with the second part of your post TBH.

In that still shot, his foot is around knee height. You guys are claiming that his foot is in front of the line based on that, ignoring the fact that it is in the air. I was making the point that his head is in front of the line as well, so therefore height off the ground matters.

If there was no camera angle to worry about then the line would have a use. As it stands, unless both feet are on the ground it is useless as is shown by this situation.

I can't believe people struggle this much with how camera angles work.

 

[Maximus]

Talking about Aubussan.

No we aren't. We know where Aubusson's feet are. We are trying to work out where Mitchell's foot is. As it's in the air, you can't just look at the line and say it's fine.