Gordon and SBW tries ?

[Lambretta]

The Graham "knock on" is in the 1% of instances where there is no clear outcome either way. I was in a room with 6 people and they were split 50/50 whether he touched it or not. Impossible to get "right".

Give him 2 points for half a try and one point for the conversion
(yes, I'm taking the pi$$)

 

[Danish]

Re SBW double movement

The ball carrying arm wasn't grounded at any point (it came within milimetres though) The replay showed that the referee made the right decision

Having said that, I was amazed it wasn't referred upstairs
I was talking to a Panthers fan after the game and said as much. He too thought it would have been referred but also agreed that it was a try

I noted that had it been any other player it's most likely it would have been referred.

Some players / teams get more lattitude from referees because you see time and again that they do things that others can't. So when they do something you would normally question your mind is saying "nah, he's good"

Sums up my feelings on it pretty succinctly.

I am especially in agreement on the fact that some players get given more lattitude than others. This morning on the Big Sports Breakfast Malcolm Rodwell (video ref for Storm vs Raiders game) called in to clear up the confusion on his TRY decision on the Slater try.

While everyone who views it sees a clear obstruction, this goose sees a try. In his reasoning, he listed that Fenson "planted his feet", which apparently meant he initiated contact (NOT Ryles, who ran into a stationary defender at full speed), and then he backed this up by stating that Slater "tap danced through 3 other defenders" to score anyway. He literally giggled while saying the part about Slater.

Basically the video ref stated that he took into account how good a player Slater is and decided he probably would have scored anyway. To me, that is a very worrying and dangerous precedent.

 

[Walt Flanigan]

Basically the video ref stated that he took into account how good a player Slater is and decided he probably would have scored anyway. To me, that is a very worrying and dangerous precedent.

That's really ordinary. The video ref should be dropped just for inferring that.

 

[Packy]

I like the new system. It is the ref making the calls but we have a safeguard to prevent absolute clangers from going through.

 

[Rod]

There's still plenty of clangers. That's why they're still a talking point after every round of footy. Just this weekend the Raiders, Warriors and Knights games all had decisions that the majority think were completely wrong.

 

[Walt Flanigan]

In the case of the Slater try, the ref actually said "no try" but the Video Ref has somehow found conclusive evidence that there was no obstruction. Despite the fact that Slater went through the exact hole left by Ryles running into Fensom.

This conclusive evidence appears to be Slater being too awesome.

 

[adamkungl]

I think the new system is much better than the previous one.

Every decision has a margin for error.

I think fewer howlers have been made this year than at this same point last year.

Big fan of the new system. Obviously there will still be errors, but from what I've seen so far you can usually pick which way a 50/50 call is gonna go pretty accurately. Less of a coin toss.

Also thought Wade Graham didn't touch it.

 

[gUt]

I thought Graham clearly touched it. In real time you see it deflect slightly off his fingertips as it falls.

SBW's was a double movement but the touch judge should have told the ref to check it.

Why Slater's try was suddenly ok I don't understand.

 

[Danish]

In the case of the Slater try, the ref actually said "no try" but the Video Ref has somehow found conclusive evidence that there was no obstruction. Despite the fact that Slater went through the exact hole left by Ryles running into Fensom.

This conclusive evidence appears to be Slater being too awesome.

Just to clarify, the reasons Rodwell officially gave were all about Fensom, he just added the little "not to mention slater tap danced around 3 defenders to score anyway, *giggle giggle*" at the end of it.

The Fensom reasons were equally ridiculous though. He stated that Fenson planted his feet, and dropped/braced his shoulder. These acts meant Fensom initiated any contact with Ryles. Apparently Ryles running full boar at him was not Ryles initiating contact? :crazy:

It seems that defenders now have to act like a basketballer trying to draw a charging foul and just lose their feet... although even in basketball only the bloke with the f**king ball is allowed to barrel into defenders and have any hope of not being penalised.

 

[carlosthedwarf]

Let's not forget the Johnson try in the Warriors game which was also a blatant no try.

 

[gUt]

Also re: SBW, his arm may not have touched the ground but the ball itself surely did.

 

[lockyno1]

Just on the old system, what exactly was so bad about it? Apart from the crappy decisions, but that's the problem of the actual referees and not the system itself.

Kieran Foran decision, last year's final series....that is why we changed to this new and better system!

 

[Joker's Wild]

Graham touched the ball, clearly evidenced when it changed direction mid air after he takes a swipe at it.

Unless of course there are different laws of physics in the SE corner of Hunter stadium

 

[Rod]

Kieran Foran decision, last year's final series....that is why we changed to this new and better system!

You'll have to jog my memory, what flaw in the system led to this wrong decision?

 

[lockyno1]

You'll have to jog my memory, what flaw in the system led to this wrong decision?

Benefit of the Doubt rubbish. I am VERY happy the system was changed. It is either a try or it is not. Honestly players make mistakes, a ref might make an error. As a fan I am prepared to cop a 50/50 if the ON FIELD ref makes a call. That is what happened yesterday, it was 50/50, you could not tell for certain whether it was a try, you go back to the original call.

I will say this...Cronulla were EASILY the better side, so that call whether you think it was incorrect, didn't cost the match. Your inability to stop Lewis and Fifita was the reason you lost...well and the fact Gidley is terrible when the pressure is on.

 

[Rod]

I will say this...Cronulla were EASILY the better side, so that call whether you think it was incorrect, didn't cost the match. Your inability to stop Lewis and Fifita was the reason you lost...well and the fact Gidley is terrible when the pressure is on.

Cool story although pretty much irrelevant.

Benefit of the Doubt rubbish. I am VERY happy the system was changed. It is either a try or it is not. Honestly players make mistakes, a ref might make an error. As a fan I am prepared to cop a 50/50 if the ON FIELD ref makes a call. That is what happened yesterday, it was 50/50, you could not tell for certain whether it was a try, you go back to the original call.

I can understand you not liking BOTD, that was the one clear flaw with the old system.

Disagree that it was a 50/50 call, the majority of people on this site, commentators and match report writers saw the knock-on, and the fact that it was originally given a try by the on-field referee is the only reason it was eventually upheld.

Honestly I've never understood people's obsession that the on-field referee must make a decision no matter what, even if they've missed crucial events leading up to the try. What benefit do we get, considering most tries still get sent upstairs anyway? I just don't see the point if the wrong decision ends up being made, just for the sake of the on-field referee making a decision.

 

[natheel]

With sbw it wasn't a try and the ref made a mistake not taking it upstairs

 

[bellyache]

:lol: Arm on the ground? You girls are blind!

 

[lockyno1]

I can understand you not liking BOTD, that was the one clear flaw with the old system.

Disagree that it was a 50/50 call, the majority of people on this site, commentators and match report writers saw the knock-on, and the fact that it was originally given a try by the on-field referee is the only reason it was eventually upheld.

Yet you want the benefit of the doubt to go to the defending team again, it is beyond silly. I am prepared to cop a decision or two, as frankly 99.9% of the time the better team wins the game. The games have been going quicker as a result and far more enjoyable than the borefest of last season spending 10 minutes to decide whether Foran knocked on...only to stuff that up as well. No system is perfect. To say it was any more or less than 50/50 is just your Newcastle goggles on, you know it, I know it. You copped one that might have been wrong, yet the Sharks copped just as many this year. I tell you what Melbourne or Souths would not have fallen over like a bunch of 10 year olds, you were still in front! The only people that 'cost' the game is the 17 players, not ONE Video Ref decision.

 

[Rod]

Yet you want the benefit of the doubt to go to the defending team again, it is beyond silly.

I never said that, not sure where you pulled that from.

To say it was any more or less than 50/50 is just your Newcastle goggles on, you know it, I know it.

The general consensus on this site and in the media suggests otherwise, but we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

You copped one that might have been wrong, yet the Sharks copped just as many this year. I tell you what Melbourne or Souths would not have fallen over like a bunch of 10 year olds, you were still in front! The only people that 'cost' the game is the 17 players, not ONE Video Ref decision.

More irrelevant drivel regarding the outcome of the game. The thread is about the Graham decision and nothing more. It is perfectly possible to dispute aspects of the game while still accepting the result you know.