Benefit of the DOUBT???

[Maroubra Eel]

I can't see the ball down on the Tele backpage. We are talking about the small picture hey?

It looks like the ball but I reckon its the Storm blokes leg.

Does anyone else see this?

 

[noosa-eel]

I M O it was a try, that makes it 12 - 12 different ball game from that point on, as for clark he has N F I.

All in all the boys didn't give in and didn't cop a flogging like alot of so called experts predicted.............

 

[strider]

well it doesn't make it 12-12 ... it makes it 12-4, kick to come and 20 mins left and the whole game from that point on pans out different ... we could have kicked on - or not ????

 

[Twizzle]

I can't see the ball down on the Tele backpage. We are talking about the small picture hey?

It looks like the ball but I reckon its the Storm blokes leg.

Does anyone else see this?

looks like teh ball slides down his leg onto the line

in any case, if that view were available at the time, there was not much doubt, so it would have been awarded imo

 

[fish eel]

could we have kicked on?

well, when we made it 12-6, we didnt really lift much or kick on.

 

[strider]

this piccy isn't on the net anywhere is it? .... i don't wanna have to buy the tele ffs!!!

 

[thehattrickrabbit]

there was enough doubt, to rule it no try, a fair few camera angles showed, that a melbourne storm players hand was in-between morrison and the ground, which gave morrison basically no time to get it down, before that, is there an angle that showed clearly morrison got it down ???? no, did it show that the defense held morrison up, in at least one frame of the video ref, yes

there was no evidence that morrison got it down, but it shows the storm player's hand under the ball, on the best angle shown, so the doubt would have to lean towards a no try call

 

[shiftysmith]

rabbitohs2005,as i already stated the camera angle from behind the goal post shows the ball actually hit the ground..i still dont know why the video ref keep looking at the front on shot,where the other one proves there was no doubt at all..simple it was a TRY

 

[Hellsy]

Not that I could see Strider, if my scanner was working I'd scan it for you

 

[strider]

I just had a look at a paper .... its definitely the melbourne guys knee in that shot - 100% .... tho I still think he got the ball down after that - knee, ground, arms

 

[eelz47]

how about our "wedgie" tactic?

 

[strider]

how about our "wedgie" tactic?

yes - i also noticed more arses than usual .... maybe we tried to move the grapple south

 

[noosa-eel]

Sorry Strider wishful thinking................:shock:

 

[dazeely]

The whole episode demonstrates the problems with the way the NRL is run. Firstly the typically reactionary and ill thought out decision by the NRL to the change the rule to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team a couple of years ago (it had always been to the defensive team), and secondly the complete inability of the match officials to adjudicate on the rules correctly and consistently. Morrisons try epitomises the meaning of "benefit of the doubt", and would have been awarded a try on another week or by another video referee. Now, a team has quite probably been unfairly knocked out of their season and thousands of supporters are left disillusioned with the game.

 

[dazeely]

Outgoing Eels coach Jason Taylor said afterwards that he thought there was one angle that supported Morrison's belief that he had grounded the ball before the thigh and then arm of Cameron Smith held him up. It was a decision that so easily could have been given the benefit of the doubt try. "It would have been nice," Taylor said.

 

[Slimy Eel]

rabbitohs2005,as i already stated the camera angle from behind the goal post shows the ball actually hit the ground..i still dont know why the video ref keep looking at the front on shot,where the other one proves there was no doubt at all..simple it was a TRY

How about Fox nrl show they couldn't show this frame by frame, just a quick show of the angle you are talking about, with one of them saying it's a try and the other saying no try.That makes it three out of three:Video ref, channel nine commentary & now NRL on Fox all didn't examine this angle in any detail.
Wonder if the footy show on Thursday will make it four out of four:x
Yes I'm mad too, if anyone doesn't like that you can SMO......

 

[strider]

yeah i saw it again on NRL Scoreboard - that one longer range angle shows it clearly it the ground - no need for benefit of the doubt ..... cam smith had his leg under it originally, then it hits the ground, then the melb arms get under again ..... yet as you say they just kept going for hte other angles which were all obstructed by player bodies ..... totally f**ked video refereeing - but it might not have made a difference anyway - we'll never know

 

[The Engineers Room]

The rule actually states this:

"Referee unsighted: The Referee should not disallow a try because he was not in a position to see the grounding of the ball."

So this means that if he couldn't find anything else wrong it should have been a try.

And on the issue that we had earlier in the year where the Video Ref was telling the referee that the decision was wrong and the decision was changed:

"Changing decision 9. The Referee judges on matters of fact and shall not subsequently alter those judgments. He may cancel any decision made if prior foul play of which he had no knowledge is reported to him by a Touch Judge.

 

[Hellsy]

Hmmm maybe the Telegraph didn't show what I thought it showed I did have a splitting headache when looking at it, so maybe it looked different.
NRL Scoreboard definately showed the ball touching the ground though I thought