Gordon and SBW tries ?

[lockyno1]

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

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

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.

So wanting to give NEWCASTLE the benefit (i.e. the defending team) is NOT wanting to give the benefit to the defence. Nice theory I guess. Reality is under the old rules, would have been a try BOTD, under the new rules it was a try, as the on field ref agreed it was a try. It was a 50/50 call, nothing more, nothing less. You get MORE than your fair share of 50/50's at home (every team does to be fair). Copping one the other way is really not that big a deal. The general consensus was that it MIGHT have been a knock on...there is not one camera angle where it showed with 100% certainty that there was a touch. It is just that it looked ugly and that it might have been wrong. It also might have been correct. Hence, it was a 50-50 and the o field decision stood.

 

[skeepe]

I think what the new system shows above all is which referees get an alarming number of decisions wrong. I remember one game where Jared Maxwell had pretty much every single decision he made overturned by the video ref.

On the Slater try, it seems like defenders need to flop to the ground when contacted to be considered to have been improperly obstructed under the new interpretation. Don't like that at all.

 

[BWNB]

I think Wright scored a fair try.

 

[Lambretta]

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

If Tinkler was in the stands and had been told that they'd run ouf of pies, then his sharp intake of breath could have cause the change in direction of the ball.

The video referee sure does have a lot to consider when making these decisions......

 

[Lambretta]

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

Not sure - will have to watch it again

I did notice last night when watching the replay on Fox that I could see me and my mates in the background in the stands while he was scoring this one / getting up to celebrate.

On those grounds alone I believe the try should be awarded

 

[Lambretta]

http://resources2.news.com.au/image...onny-bill-williams-039-controversial-try-.gif

Ball no touch the ground

 

[Bgoodorgoodatit]

if the SBW try had gone to the video ref I think the decision would have hung on what the on field ref had ruled. i.e. there would have been insufficient evidence to overturn either decision.

I saw the graham incident last night on the Matty johns show and how anyone could think that he didn't touch that ball is beyond me. worse was the fact that the on field ref ruled no try and somehow they found sufficient evidence to over turn it. you could perhaps defend the video ref had it been ruled a try on the field. pretty bad decision and one that really should happen under the new interpretation.

slater try I though was a clear no try however I cant remember which way the on field ref went with it. if he had ruled try then you could make a case that Fensom made a bad read however I still think he was impeded from recovering and having a chance to make a tackle.

overall I'm much happier with the current mandate of the video ref.

 

[ek999]

if the SBW try had gone to the video ref I think the decision would have hung on what the on field ref had ruled. i.e. there would have been insufficient evidence to overturn either decision.

I saw the graham incident last night on the Matty johns show and how anyone could think that he didn't touch that ball is beyond me. worse was the fact that the on field ref ruled no try and somehow they found sufficient evidence to over turn it. you could perhaps defend the video ref had it been ruled a try on the field. pretty bad decision and one that really should happen under the new interpretation.

slater try I though was a clear no try however I cant remember which way the on field ref went with it. if he had ruled try then you could make a case that Fensom made a bad read however I still think he was impeded from recovering and having a chance to make a tackle.

overall I'm much happier with the current mandate of the video ref.

On field ref ruled it as a try

 

[Rod]

Yeah they got that bit wrong on the Matty Johns Show, said it was originally a no try.

So wanting to give NEWCASTLE the benefit (i.e. the defending team) is NOT wanting to give the benefit to the defence. Nice theory I guess. Reality is under the old rules, would have been a try BOTD, under the new rules it was a try, as the on field ref agreed it was a try. It was a 50/50 call, nothing more, nothing less. You get MORE than your fair share of 50/50's at home (every team does to be fair). Copping one the other way is really not that big a deal. The general consensus was that it MIGHT have been a knock on...there is not one camera angle where it showed with 100% certainty that there was a touch. It is just that it looked ugly and that it might have been wrong. It also might have been correct. Hence, it was a 50-50 and the o field decision stood.

Just because Newcastle happened to be the defending team on this occasion it doesn't mean I always want BOTD to go to the defending team you plank. If you had actually read my gripes with the new system on page 1 you might have some idea of what I'm talking about instead of bleating on about sour grapes or trying to explain the new system to me for some reason.

 

[skeepe]

slater try I though was a clear no try however I cant remember which way the on field ref went with it. if he had ruled try then you could make a case that Fensom made a bad read however I still think he was impeded from recovering and having a chance to make a tackle.

overall I'm much happier with the current mandate of the video ref.

On-field ref ruled no try. The video ref overturned it, saying that Fensom was the one that initiated contact, which is clearly bullshit.

 

[Radical Rat]

The Graham knock-on try just confirmed for me that the new system is stupid and doesn't work. Needing 'conclusive evidence to overturn the decision' is nothing but a get out of jail free card for the referees.

By the very nature of going upstairs the on-field ref is implying that they don't really know what happened, so why is their opinion on the try given so much weight? I can live with the on-field ref missing the Graham knock-on in real time because there's bodies in the way, things happen quickly etc., but that's why we have a video ref. So if the on-field ref is unsure why then is the video ref required to find conclusive evidence to overturn their decision? Why can't they just rule on what they see instead of having to factor in the on-field refs opinion? It just leads to a situation, and we've seen a lot of these already, where if the original decision had been try it will stay a try, and vice versa if the original decision was no try.

I don't see much sense in a video ref system that allows two different decisions to occur so easily by relying on the whim of the on-field ref. It defeats the purpose of having a video ref. And all of this is of course added on to the fact that this particular video ref call was a shocker anyway, regardless of what the original decision was. The first angle showed a knock-on pretty clearly and then they never went back to that angle for a second look, but went over and over the front-on angle about 6 times? Ridiculous.

I totally agree with all of this. These are my exact feelings on why this new system is flawed. Yes the Tigers suck this year, but we've been absolutely raped by this new system. It's like the ref has no idea so takes a 50/50 gamble on it and we're then putting all the weight on that decision? madness.

When it comes to obstructions, it's still just up to different interpretation between the onfield ref and the video ref. That Slater try for Melbourne is a perfect example.

 

[Bgoodorgoodatit]

Yeah they got that bit wrong on the Matty Johns Show, said it was originally a no try.

I see. my bad on that I was just going on what they said didn't actually watch that game.

despite that I still think there was conclusive evidence that he touched it.

 

[giggity giggity]

The graham try was over ruled by video ref/ex cronulla sharks player paul mellor,nuff said.
rodwell should be sacked for his shocker,then to go on radio and giggle about how amazing slater is and that he would have scored anyway just shows that the rules mean nothing if the video ref has a boner/facination with the player involved in the decision,it is blatant cheating in any other language.

 

[gUt]

Why can't they just stick to an interpretation or methodology once they announce it. It's the constant changing that f**ks the system. Anderson was strong on his new way initially but that lasted what, five weeks? Five weeks of drivel from the media and fans whose new catch-cry was "it's not always black and white!!". The same people who rightly said last season "there's too much grey areas!".

 

[Card Shark]

If the video ref looked at the Wright try from the right camera (far side on camera), he would've made the correct decision. Why he looked at that angle once but the other angles 8 times is beyond me .

Same goes for SBW try. Why do they show a double movement try in slow mo. in normal speed it's a try everyday, although the ball did scrape the grass.

Video refs are not practical enough !

 

[mxlegend99]

Same goes for SBW try. Why do they show a double movement try in slow mo. in normal speed it's a try everyday, although the ball did scrape the grass.

When the ball touched the ground that made the tackle complete. His effort to get it over the line was a second movement, and had nothing to do with momentum.

Even in normal speed, he clearly touched the ground and then extended his arm over the line. The slow mo replay just makes it easier to see that the ball made contact with the ground.

Gotta love the shitty quality gif posted earlier with no detail where the ball/ground is claiming it never touched. On the broadcast in the multiple angles shown it was obvious that the ball made contact with the ground before his second effort. The fact he had so many defenders on him and was a bit out from the try line, should have atleast been enough to get it sent to the video referee for a proper look. The amount of times they'll do it for blatantly obvious tries is ridiculous, and yet here we have one where a try was extremely unlikely and it gets awarded on the spot.

 

[BCH]

Off topic, but Slater's try has been mentioned so I'll keep going. Jamie Lyon's try last night - I've only seen it once but double movement??

 

[Frailty]

The graham try was over ruled by video ref/ex cronulla sharks player paul mellor,nuff said.
rodwell should be sacked for his shocker,then to go on radio and giggle about how amazing slater is and that he would have scored anyway just shows that the rules mean nothing if the video ref has a boner/facination with the player involved in the decision,it is blatant cheating in any other language.

The onfield referee called Jonothan Wright's try (it wasn't awarded to Graham) a try. There was no over-ruling. The Matty Johns showed got it wrong last night.

As for Paul Mellor, "nuff said".... Yeah he wouldn't hold any grudges to the club at all considering one of its favourite sons was f**king his mrs.

 

[^_^]

lol Jamie Lyon's try was fine. They kept slowing it down but then once they played it real time it was obviously a try since he was sliding forward with 2 defenders on his back.

The refs should have more then T or No T when they go up to video ref, cause sometimes they quite obviously dont know (the jamie lyon try was called as held up cause he didnt see it) so they should just say not sure either way please check, this way the video ref doesnt have to prove for or against a refs guess they can simply make up their own mind????? I dont see why the video ref and on field ref cant discuss together while reviewing the footage (if they already dont).

 

[Apey]

http://resources2.news.com.au/image...onny-bill-williams-039-controversial-try-.gif

Ball no touch the ground

Seems okay to me.