Ando dealt with that on Sunday on the ABC. Said basically the same thing.The real problem was getting the count wrong.
Except the real problem to many seems to be the weight, as it were, of the 7 tackle count, rather than the ease of avoiding a counting issue.
If the count was wrong, as Anderson and the referees involved (by not using a zero tackle defense) seem to be saying, it is terrible in that it should not happen (much like not knowing the rules, that Sharks fans were upset at in the round 1 loss to the Tigers in 2012).
I and other Sharks fans, to the best of my knowledge, have not denied that it is a terrible decision to allow 7 tackles from this regard. What we dispute is the implication that the decision was such a crushing burden in a tight contest, that the Sharks were gifted a try, gifted a victory, should have to replay the game, were not worthy winners and other such nonsense.
If the zero tackle should have been applied (as seems the case from some footage), this in no way makes mis counting any less terrible from the point of view of assessing referee blunders. In fact, it would mean the referees have made two blunders in rapid succession (not getting the zero tackle right, and not getting the tackle count right).
But in terms of the burden against a team of not getting a zero tackle when they should, and against another team in getting 7 tackles against them, these seem like errors that have a pretty even effect on a game. Ironically, if applied in rapid succession, as did happen, the team that should have gotten 7 tackles but then had a missed call that got them six, but then had a bad count that got them 7, seems to be in pretty much the same situation as if no errors had been made.
The point then is that in terms of "gifting" a team the win, in the very same set it would seem that the Sharks were not really given a unduly unfair and overwhelming advantage.
We Sharkies fans (if I can deign to speak on behalf of them all, as I'm sure I can as recognised overlord of the forums) have been arguing this all along (despite agreeing that mis counting is terrible; I should want all to agree to that as a Maths teacher!), and I would hope it is clear to most that even if the zero tackle should not have applied, plenty of decisions in a game have an effect that can be as great as gaining an extra tackle, and we even reckon in one eyed Shark land that we copped a few raw ones ourselves in that match. It's just even clearer that the decision was not unduly burdensome if it can be seen that in the very same set an equal and opposite weighting decision went against the Sharks that if applied correctly would have given pretty much the same result as we got.