Benefit of the DOUBT???

[N.Hindmarsh_Fan]

DOES NOT EXIST FOR THIS TEAM, IT NEVER HAS AND IT NEVER WILL!!!! :x :x :x

 

[Dutchy]

Should have been a try

I beleive B of the D should go to def team anyway..

but on current rules ; Parra was rorted

 

[N.Hindmarsh_Fan]

un freaking believable, i am fuming man@!!!!!

 

[shiftysmith]

the camera angle looking from the behind the goal on the angle you see the ball hit the ground.....what a joke

 

[pazzaeel]

the vision from the other side of the field showed the ball on the line. there was no doubt, it was a try.

like phil gould said, there was no way the video ref could have said it was definitely not a try.

melbourne's first try came from a blatant strip to.

 

[ParraManiac]

That was a joke, just like Clark allowing the play the balls to be ridiculously slow.

 

[N.Hindmarsh_Fan]

what about that strip, so obvious!!!! i knew it would not be a try to parra, we have never ever got the benefit of the doubt!

 

[strider]

alll I can say is ..... mmmmmmmmmmm

who was the video ref anyway?

 

[parra-matters]

Have we ever got a B of the D try?
Have you noticed they don't give them in close games?
NRL needs Storm to win to get something back from there investment.
Like any business do what it takes to make a profit, thats why Storm have had a Rails run all season.

 

[eeelectroshooting?]

even refs call would be sufficient for me, and then we could've blamed clarke

 

[strider]

even refs call would be sufficient for me, and then we could've blamed clarke

:lol: :lol: booooooo clarke!

oh dear .... i can laugh now - but i assure you, not at the time :evil:

 

[Jizmizm]

Worst decision ever lol. parra were unlucky not to win that game.

 

[mickdo]

Shocking call, as was the non call on the strip that gave the Storm a try. Clarke was poor today.

 

[Delboy]

Someone who believes in the consoiracy theory would believe in te following 2 points.
1. Clark had made his mind Parra would slow the play ball (in consultation with idiot Finch), and just penalised one side. Not to mention the Storm moving to one side when playing the ball.
2. The NRL wants to prove Melbourne deserves a spot in the competition, that wouldnt happen with News Limited, would it and the Storm be given a leg up. Hmmmm:crazy: :crazy:

 

[BlueNGoldBlood]

ALL YEAR Benefit HAS been given in those circumstances to the ATTACKING team.

I thought thats how it was ruled all this year so far? and then we see a call like that.. dreadful decision..

 

[scottyeel]

Friggin' rorted. We never had a chance since that prlck clark was named to ref us on Tuesday.

 

[niall]

Try Until Proven No Try! And That Was Not Proven No Try!

 

[niall]

IF YOU POUR WATER ON ME NOW STEAM WILL FLY EVERYWHERE, im still fuming!!!!!!!!! I will now hold in my anger and belt the sh*t out of anyone who says anything bad bout parra tomoro! WTACH OUT PARRA CRITICS!

 

[bartman]

It's s strange rule. I've seen benefit of doubt given on video calls in England a lot more often this season, and sometimes it leaves you scratching your head, thinking it was too much of an advantage to the attacking side in some situations?

Here we have one that doesn't go that way and also leaves you scratching your head as to why not, if others have been. I think it's a poor rule because it adds to the uncertainty and inconsistency in refereeing, and I'd sooner see it scrapped so that every team knows there has to be no doubt. That or make it ref's call (like the old days) and we all have to live with the call they make?

 

[True EEL]

horrible and offensive call on the no try....

all year BOTD has been given in 100 times more questionable decisions than that, i couldn't honestly believe it....even Gould said it was a try

Steve Clark.....nuff said about that waste of space