Darren Smith no-try

[Hari Kari]

I thought it just missed the chalk - The thing is, that's what I thought... I can;t definitively say that it didn't, therefore benefit of the doubt should have applied (that's the rule isn't it??)... But then benefit of the doubt is never applied...

Had it been awarded, it could be argued the game could have developed very differently... but the bottom line is teh Broncos had enough chances, and were inept when they made breaks... The Tigers finished all over them, it was pretty embarrassing in the end really

benefit of the doubt is best employed when they can't actually see the grounding. eg: a guy underneath 5 defenders.
if they've got a shot of what happened then it shouldn't be brought into it.

 

[j_tig]

too close to call, after a couple of viewings i predicted a refs call, no try ruling (mander musty have some grave concerns otherwise he wouldnt have sent it up). to close to call and to be honest i would have been ok with a try being awarded, sad but ok

 

[HevyDevy]

No try, good decision. There was certainly doubt, but who cares, I don't like the beneffit of the doubt rule anyway.

It doesn't matter whether you like it or not - the fact is the rule exists. There was doubt, therefore try. case closed.

 

[HevyDevy]

benefit of the doubt is best employed when they can't actually see the grounding. eg: a guy underneath 5 defenders.
if they've got a shot of what happened then it shouldn't be brought into it.

Actually it's the other way around. Benefit of the doubt is only employed when the evidence is there but inconclusive. In other situations, such as when the camers can't see a thing, that's when ref's call is syupposed to be used because the video ref can't offer any further insight

 

[simon says]

NO try.....the ball neber touched the line.You dont get benefit of the doubt for missing by a few inches.

Definitely no try.

 

[HevyDevy]

Nice Wests Tigers banner ...

 

[simon says]

Pffft.

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

It doesn't matter whether you like it or not - the fact is the rule exists. There was doubt, therefore try. case closed.

I hope you bought enough weed for everyone.

 

[HevyDevy]

Once again, nice Wests Tigers banner ...

 

[Front-Rower]

Actually it's the other way around. Benefit of the doubt is only employed when the evidence is there but inconclusive. In other situations, such as when the camers can't see a thing, that's when ref's call is syupposed to be used because the video ref can't offer any further insight

Its called Karma buddy. Pat Richards at Suncorp last year ring any bells?

The only person I have heard say that it was a try to Smith was Daley and he was getting bagged by Alexander and Freeman on Scoreboard last night.

 

[Big Pete]

I was at the game, and the camera was at the worse angle. Richards was out before he grounded it.

Though I believe Smith had no downward pressure and thus didn't score.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Actually it's the other way around. Benefit of the doubt is only employed when the evidence is there but inconclusive. In other situations, such as when the camers can't see a thing, that's when ref's call is syupposed to be used because the video ref can't offer any further insight

Spot on

 

[HevyDevy]

Its called Karma buddy. Pat Richards at Suncorp last year ring any bells?

The only person I have heard say that it was a try to Smith was Daley and he was getting bagged by Alexander and Freeman on Scoreboard last night.

Perhaps that's why he didn't score - he was too busy ringing bells :roll:

So Daley is the only person you've heard say it was a try? What about people you've read say it was a try - such as on this forum.

Time to do some reading ... buddy

 

[Iafeta]

I was rooting for the Tiges, but from the very LIMITED vision I saw, you couldn't conclusively say one way or the other, and there was a fair chance the ball scraped the chalk.

Benefit of the doubt=Try.

Pity video referees though really can't rule it that way now because they haven't ruled it that way all season. Yet Robert Finch sits back and says refereeing has been hunky dory - he probably thought Simpkins balls up the other night was sweet, just like he thought all the c**k ups by David Abood in the Roosters/Warriors match at Aussie Stadium were sweet "judging from his view 40 metres up in the stand with a tank full of p!ss cheering on Bretty baby."

 

[Front-Rower]

Perhaps that's why he didn't score - he was too busy ringing bells :roll:

So Daley is the only person you've heard say it was a try? What about people you've read say it was a try - such as on this forum.

Time to do some reading ... buddy

Roger that 10-4. I have read the comments posted on here by the various people but in the media, even on the telecast they were saying it wasn't a try. Daley was running scared last night because those Dragons are going out the back door on Saturday night.

And like I said I still think to this day Pat Richards scored that try at Suncorp, just like you think Smith scored, it all evens itself out in the end.