King Try ?

[Nullajet]

80% of the 45% are Bronco fans or upset Eels fans...

 

[salivor]

80% of the 45% are Bronco fans or upset Eels fans...

Well considering it's not a public poll we don't know who voted what so just like everything else you've sprouted over the last 48 hours, you've got no evidence to back it up. Talking sense is your friend not your enemy.

 

[Ghoulies]

2.25% of the 56.25% are dim witted Sharks fans.

 

[Lowdown]

Look I watched it on the night and thought there was no clear evidence that Hoffman touched and certainly it is clear that Hodges touched it first. Worst case it should have been a storm feed.

But I have watched it back probably 20 times in slow mo on the dvd recorder and there is no evidence that Hoffman ever touch's the ball, in the fact it is quite the opposite Hodge's hands and arms appear to always be on the inside of hoffman's arm preventing the ball from coming in contact.

In my view it should have been a clear try or a benefit of the doubt try, because as I said there is no clear evidence that Hoffman ever touch's the ball. How Harrigan came up with his call is beyond me, it speaks of the man's ego that today he has come out and said Simpkins got calls wrong but he made the right call on the try.

It had to be try and I am a supporter of neither team, and I am not saying melb were robbed and brisbane wouldn't have won. Brisbane may have won anyway, but the simple fact is it should have been awarded, there is no clear evidence to deny a try.

What I can't believe is that 45% of people are saying no try in this, they obviously have not watched the tape back.

Good post. I think people are missing the point...and the point being that this was not a 50:50 or benefit of the doubt debate...

IT'S A SCREW-UP OF THE BIGGEST BADDEST KIND!! End of debate.

A crucial try to equalise the Grand Final. It was referred to Video Referees to determine its legitimacy - to ensure the correct decision was made. To remove the chances of such a stuff up happening.

It wasn't. They screwed up, and deserve to be reprimanded like any professional who makes such a big mistake in their job.

The replay is clear, and pictures this clear do not lie. But how does most people who watched it in replay convinced of it being a try, yet the two professionals in the box, with the most skill, get it so very very wrong.

It happened in the Grand Final, in front of millions. It is the stuff of nightmares for any hard-core sports supporter.

Now before all the other team supporters come in and talk 'Storm beat Dragons due to dudd calls...Swings and roundabouts' - crap - they are mostly difficult calls, called by refs in the heat of the moment as they see them. It doesn't matter that this is the Storm.

The fact is, that a 2 video refs screwed up a decision, in which their very purpose is to ensure such mistakes ARE REMOVED from the game.

 

[El Diablo]

80% of the 45% are Bronco fans or upset Eels fans...

and one could say 80% of the 55% are Storm fans or Bronco haters.

 

[juanfarkall]

No try was signalled by the referee at the time, so NO try was scored.

Should we have 3 video refs in case the first 2 are of different opinions ?

Maybe 4 in case 1 does not know and the other 2 each differ ?

or should we just keep going until we get the result that YOU want rather than the decision that YOU refuse to accept.

does not really matter because the result will not change and in 12 months you will still be bitching and nobody else will care.

Build a bridge.

Get over it.

 

[salivor]

End of debate.

Wow, thats such a compelling argument, well I'm done I can't compete with that. So far 44% of people don't think along the same lines as you, the public is split on whether it was a try or not so whether you like it or not it is a debate and your opinion doesn't amount to fact.

 

[aids]

can someone make a "no try" animated gif please

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

No - we comprehensively outplayed the Dragons from start to finish. Result did not hinge on decisions which were 50-50 at best. The decisions made on Sunday night were hardly 50-50, and they all favoured Brisbane.

Dont get me wrong, Broncos were the better team - its unfortunate that the way the game was officiated prevented an un-tarnished result.

take off your purple goggles for f**k sake

 

[Molly]

Wow, thats such a compelling argument, well I'm done I can't compete with that. So far 44% of people don't think along the same lines as you, the public is split on whether it was a try or not so whether you like it or not it is a debate and your opinion doesn't amount to fact.

This is the key point, everyone is split on whether it was a try or not so, as the rules have it, the BOD must go with the attacking side and therefore it is clear that the Video Referees both stuffed it up as under the BOD a try surely must have been the correct decision.

Its all a waste of time now of course the best team on the night won and thats all there is to it.

BTW, Bill Harrigan said on Melbourne radio this morning that the refereeing did not directly lose the GF for Melbourne, but it may have contributed to the overall result. Work that one out???

 

[This Year?]

Bill Harrigan said on Melbourne radio this morning that the refereeing did not directly lose the GF for Melbourne, but it may have contributed to the overall result. Work that one out???

It's his way of saying "yeah...we stuffed up but we're not responsible".

 

[juanfarkall]

Wrong attitude.

Something can be done, and believe me something will be done. We will have the NFLs system of challenging in decisions before you can blink an eye. And yes that includes challenging the video ref.

I don't give a sh*t how much it slows the game down (I don't think it will slow it down much at all), I want players deciding the outcome of games, not referees.

*edit*.

yawn.....

if that occurs, we will never get around to finals because we spend the year arguing over the results of most matches.

any game involving melbourne has a "rort" feel about it, as does any grand final played at night.

 

[jimmythehand]

yawn.....

if that occurs, we will never get around to finals because we spend the year arguing over the results of most matches.

any game involving melbourne has a "rort" feel about it, as does any grand final played at night.

But my point is that we won't be arguing over the results of most matches because more refereeing decisions on the field will be correct. How do you figure the other way?

 

[juanfarkall]

But my point is that we won't be arguing over the results of most matches because more refereeing decisions on the field will be correct. How do you figure the other way?

You missed my point that arguements will continue until the desired decision is made. Then the other party will challenge.... etc... etc...

Because no single decision will ever make both sides happy.

Personally I hate the Broncos but am happy with both the decision and the outcome.

I am unaware of your feelings towards the Broncos, but I can tell that you are unhappy with both the decisions and the result.

Introduce a challenge system and nobody will be happy and the game as a whole will be the big loser.

 

[salivor]

The challenge system is a waste of time, there will still be arguments. Just look at the superbowl this year, Ben Roethlisberger scored a touchdown where it was very questionable whether the ball crossed the line, it was challenged but still opinion was split on whether it should've been a touchdown or not.

No matter how much technology and gimics you bring to the game, as long as people like jimmythehand and nullajet exist there will always be someone wanting to claim that life is unfair. I'm starting to come to the opinion that we should scrap it all together and go back to the onfield refs decision is final as all it has created is a culture we we have to analise every second of the match in order to find the most minute of mistakes to make excuses for sides. Who would want to be a referee in the modern game where players and teams are seemingly absolved of any responsibility for results?

 

[El Diablo]

No try

 

[Mase]

Try!

 

[Whats Doing]

The real problem is not the video ref but Harrigan's arrogance. He has stated previously that the video ref needs to make a decison with no more than 2 looks at the replay. The time taken to make a decision was extraordinarily short which indicates he had very few looks at it.

Slow motion replays clearly shows that the ball came off Hodges into Hoffman's head which rebounded back to King.

It was a dead set try or at worst, the benefit of the doubt to Melbourne.

Get rid of Harrigan's arrogance and we might get the decision right more often.

 

[simon says]

The real problem is not the video ref but Harrigan's arrogance. He has stated previously that the video ref needs to make a decison with no more than 2 looks at the replay. The time taken to make a decision was extraordinarily short which indicates he had very few looks at it.

Slow motion replays clearly shows that the ball came off Hodges into Hoffman's head which rebounded back to King.

It was a dead set try or at worst, the benefit of the doubt to Melbourne.

Get rid of Harrigan's arrogance and we might get the decision right more often.

Welll said on both counts,dead set try and Harrigan is a dope.

 

[Balmain_Boy]

There were two in the video box.