Cowboys robbed clear as day

[innsaneink]

NRL refs boss admits to Manly try error

http://www.nrl.com/nrl-refs-boss-admits-to-manly-try-error/tabid/10874/newsid/69912/default.aspx


The crisis engulfing the NRL's whistleblowers has flowed through to the playoffs with referees boss Stuart Raper admitting officials got it wrong again in awarding the try that clinched Manly's preliminary final berth..................

 

[oval]

Watched the footage again a few times...

Looks like it came off Thurstons right hand... Have a look!

(ducks for cover)

 

[GongPanther]

Watched the footage again a few times...

Looks like it came off Thurstons right hand... Have a look!

(ducks for cover)

SWOOSH!!!!!:lol:

 

[Dummy Spit Johns]

NRL refs boss admits to Manly try error

http://www.nrl.com/nrl-refs-boss-admits-to-manly-try-error/tabid/10874/newsid/69912/default.aspx


The crisis engulfing the NRL's whistleblowers has flowed through to the playoffs with referees boss Stuart Raper admitting officials got it wrong again in awarding the try that clinched Manly's preliminary final berth..................

A bit f**kin late now Stuart!

 

[Parramatta1947]

There is a Face...book page about Cowboys were robbed (search and you will find it). Over 32,000 likes (double the crowd last night).

And a classic 'meme' - picture of Homer Simpson working from home when he was morbidly obese.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

Fair try by the NSWelshman is only worth 6 points

Add the other try and they are on 12, you following or to dumb?

No worries, you failed to express yourself clearly then. Don't worry though, I won't hold it against you. Your jimmies are thoroughly rustled afterall.

 

[Briza]

Taking away the 2 50/50 calls to Manly and the Obvious Strip/try to cows, manly win 10 - 6 get over it!

 

[Perth Red]

I don't think Cowboys were robbed but I do think the refs had a shocker (again). End of day Cowboys had chances to score points and didn't (Tate not passing etc) and both teams got 50/50's or just plain wrong decisions go in their favour. Having said that any decision that is directly related to the act of scoring a try like the Foran one is always going to smell much nastier than a play that eventually leads to a try (ie the missed strip, the nothing holding down penalty etc).

I would still love to hear from the two video refs about what exactly they thought they saw as 98% of people clearly believe it was a knock on.

 

[Didgi]

Taking away the 2 50/50 calls to Manly and the Obvious Strip/try to cows, manly win 10 - 6 get over it!

We should round up everyone who thinks the NRL works like this and ship them off to a sport where scoring points doesn't significantly change the game. Or execute them in public as a warning against other bottom feeders.

 

[nrlnrl]

Taking away the 2 50/50 calls to Manly and the Obvious Strip/try to cows, manly win 10 - 6 get over it!

Please remember that once the first incident changes, everything else from that point onwards does as well. So who knows what the final score would've been. ( I'm a neutral in this argument about last night's game, as I didn't care who won )

 

[GongPanther]

NRL refs boss admits to Manly try error

http://www.nrl.com/nrl-refs-boss-admits-to-manly-try-error/tabid/10874/newsid/69912/default.aspx


The crisis engulfing the NRL's whistleblowers has flowed through to the playoffs with referees boss Stuart Raper admitting officials got it wrong again in awarding the try that clinched Manly's preliminary final berth..................

These two (Harrigan and Raper) should be shown the door.

The system is broke and it needs fixing.

 

[GongPanther]

Please remember that once the first incident changes, everything else from that point onwards does as well. So who knows what the final score would've been. ( I'm a neutral in this argument about last night's game, as I didn't care who won )

Very valid point.

What also bemuses me as well is how the refs missed that grounding of the ball in the Manly in-goal.

 

[Perth Red]

They didn't miss it, they said it wasn't intentional so could play on. That is not my understanding of the rule book so either that is in the rule book or they just plain got it wrong.

Be interesting to see a defender try to knock a ball dead in goal, miss hit but tap it on the ground and see an attacker swoop on the ball. Bet they wouldn't give the try!

 

[firechild]

I'd agree with the above. Surely the precedent was set when Brett Stewart was ruled to have grounded the ball in origin when he had every intention of picking the ball up and attempting to get out of the ingoal.

 

[Briza]

We should round up everyone who thinks the NRL works like this and ship them off to a sport where scoring points doesn't significantly change the game. Or execute them in public as a warning against other bottom feeders.

:lol: your a sook, enjoy mad monday nancy.

 

[Zelig96]

Before the season started they said if a player does not ground the ball intentionally (ie he slips like Taufua) then it is play on.

Roosters scored a length of the field try late in the season from an identical scenario when Roger Tuivasa-Scheck was also ruled not to have intentionally grounded it and then allowed to play on.

Can't say I agree with this new interpretation, but at least it has been applied consistently.


Nobody seemed upset in the first half when Bowen did the exact same thing - slipped over and unintentionally grounded it, but then proceeded to play on (Bowen passed it to a teammate, who has ultimately tackled dead in goal).

 

[Zelig96]

I think the problem with the Video Ref and "Benefit of the Doubt" is the blanket ruling that BOTD should go to the attacking team.

BOTD should be able to go to either the attacking team or the defending team depending on where the balance of probabilities on the doubt lies.

If there is "doubt", but it is more likely it was No Try than a Try, then result should be NO TRY-BOTD.

If there is "doubt", but is is more likely a fair Try than a No Try, then then result should be TRY-BOTD.

Only when the "doubt" is 50-50 as to whether it was a try or not should BOTD go to the attacking team.


In Foran's case, even a biased Manly fan like myself (who thinks there was maybe a 10% possibility he didn't touch it), can still see that it was more likely a No Try than a Try, therefore it should have been NO TRY-BOTD.

The argument over whether the possibility he touched it was 90% or 100% becomes irrelevant - in both cases, the ruling would still be NO TRY.


In the Taufua case, I think it was more likely a fair try than not a try given his momentum. At worst it was 50-50, therefore based on the above approach, TRY-BOTD would be the correct ruling.

 

[t-ba]

That's madness, absolute madness. Then we'd end up with arguments over the percentages of doubt...

A wise man once said don't mistake complication for sophistication.

Remove the Video Ref in its current capacity and institute a challenge system for coaches (not captains FFS...) like in Tennis. If you win the appeal, you are allowed to appeal again. f*ck up and you lose the right.

 

[Didgi]

How about somewhat of a 'best of both worlds' scenario (though I doubt you could call it that, given neither worlds are very good atm...).

The referee doesn't know 100% whether a try is scored. However, if he sends it upstairs he sends it upstairs with the notation that "I think it is/is not a try". For that decision to be changed the video ref needs proof to the contrary. Any doubt and it goes back ref's call.

Puts the onus back on the referees, as many are suggesting. Removes the ridiculous doubt factor from the box, as many are suggesting. Doesn't leave it open to interpretation to the tards in the box - unless you can clearly see one way or the other, go with the referee's original decision.

 

[Glen]