Melbourne "No Try"

[yobbo84]

It never got to the grass but the on field ref needs the option of "I have no f**king idea". The guessing of try or no try is silly when they have no view at all

Definitely agree with this.

The awarding/removal of try farce aside, just send it up as a try, a no try, or "unsighted".

 

[Iamback]

There's absolutely no guarantee we beat you even playing differently. I just would've liked to see us adapt, somewhat.

Your issue is the same as the Broncos

Lack of plodders, plenty of flair but no one to do the ugly stuff

 

[age.s]

Definitely agree with this.

The awarding/removal of try farce aside, just send it up as a try, a no try, or "unsighted".

What would be the point? What do they do if there are no good camera angles? Send it down for the ref to make a call? If so, that's functionally what we have now.

 

[age.s]

Your issue is the same as the Broncos

Lack of plodders, plenty of flair but no one to do the ugly stuff

We don't have that many plodders, we have several Nigel Plums though.

 

[Iamback]

We don't have that many plodders, we have several Nigel Plums though.

You don't get out of the car park at the academy if you won't do the ugly stuff

 

[Tiger5150]

You don't get out of the car park at the academy if you won't do the ugly stuff

Penrith carparks are where the ugliest stuff happens as a rule.

 

[ACTPanthers]

Penrith carparks are where the ugliest stuff happens as a rule.

Are we meeting there again sweetheart? Or your place this time?

 

[blue bags]

It was called No Try so that means it's a No Try. So, you need to move on and try and score again.

Did part of the ball touch the grass. I believe so. However, it was called no try on field and hard to overturn with that evidence.

Happens all the time. Stiff shit. Cleary smart for jumping in front of camera.

Penrith too good again.

Needs to be an investigation into this
The Ball was on the ground
C'mon
Bigger TVs
Bigger one's
Surely we have better one's
Is this the best we have
C'mon

 

[moffla]

Howarth should have got up, celebrated like mad and it would get awarded. Awful system, but it is what it is.

Better side won, but once again the talking point of a huge game is the Bunker

 

[Frankus]

As a panthers fan - would be fine if sent up a try and awarded. Personally I don’t know if it was. Howarth didn’t look overly confident when he first got up, usually a telling sign.

I’m surprised (mind you haven’t read all the comments) no one is questioning whether Turuva grounded the ball for his try. At the time I was surprised it wasn’t scrutinised more.

Them’s the breaks I guess.

 

[Canard]

The Bunker conclusively ruled a no-try. (correctly)

There was no inconclusive about it.

If the commentators eyes weren't painted on, this wouldn't even be being dicussed.

 

[Munky]

The Bunker conclusively ruled a no-try. (correctly)

There was no inconclusive about it.

If the commentators eyes weren't painted on, this wouldn't even be being dicussed.

If they showed the synced angles it would be talked about as one of the great defensive plays.

It was a pretty easy flop over the line for Howarth but he stuffed an easy try.

 

[Michael Matral]

As a panthers fan - would be fine if sent up a try and awarded. Personally I don’t know if it was. Howarth didn’t look overly confident when he first got up, usually a telling sign.

I’m surprised (mind you haven’t read all the comments) no one is questioning whether Turuva grounded the ball for his try. At the time I was surprised it wasn’t scrutinised more.

Them’s the breaks I guess.

Probably worth a second look to be honest but looked like a try.

 

[Canard]

This is the best angle of Turuvas try being grounded..probably worth a second look to be honest but these have been given all year..ball on the line and all

Probs a good idea to include some sort of visual aid when posting something like this.

 

[Saxon]

Honestly it's not even inconclusive. The reverse angle shows the ball is on its side with the point of it tucked into Howarths arm between his forearm and bicep. His arm is underneath the ball with his hand hugging it into his arm and the shots everyone is saying is the ball being grounded are actually his arm and elbow.

Once you know what you're looking at on that angle, it's pretty easy to see that his arm is comfortably under the ball and that it is his arm on the grass. Someone over at the kennel had a good image that outlined the arm and makes it easy to see.

I can't upload so hopefully the link works.

Funny how the 'forearm' under the ball suddenly goes from white to flesh coloured.

Personal opinion is it was a try, but it's been and gone and there's nothing we can do about it.
But yet again the bunker has made a complete fool of the game by claiming that there is conclusive evidence when there isn't. All they had to do was say "video is inconclusive and there is not enough evidence to overturn". We wouldn't have liked it but it would have been a case of that's the rule and fair enough. Instead by claiming there is concrete evidence to prove their case and not being able to produce it - even the neutrals are 50-50 about was it or wasn't it - the NRL again proves that it isn't up to speed.

Then again, Atkins is about as bright as a single glow worm in Khazad-Dum so it's hardly a surprise.

 

[Fangs]

Funny how the 'forearm' under the ball suddenly goes from white to flesh coloured.

Personal opinion is it was a try, but it's been and gone and there's nothing we can do about it.
But yet again the bunker has made a complete fool of the game by claiming that there is conclusive evidence when their isn't. All they had to do was say "video is inconclusive and there is not enough evidence to overturn". We wouldn't have liked it but it would have been a case of that's the rule and fair enough. Instead by claiming there is concrete evidence to prove their case and not being able to produce it - even the neutrals are 50-50 about was it or wasn't it - the NRL again proves that it isn't up to speed.

Then again, Atkins is about as bright as a single glow worm in Khazad-Dum so it's hardly a surprise.

We are on page 9 of this thread now. Have you been keeping up?

If you still think it was a try you need to tender your resignation from your position at LU and start posting on Facebook. The NRL have provided conclusive proof which you obviously haven't viewed yet.

Your own CEO and chairman have stated it wasn't a try. Don't tell me you think they're in on the plot too? Forget about what the rest of the peanut gallery thinks.

 

[Yosemite Sam]

Funny how the 'forearm' under the ball suddenly goes from white to flesh coloured.

Personal opinion is it was a try, but it's been and gone and there's nothing we can do about it.
But yet again the bunker has made a complete fool of the game by claiming that there is conclusive evidence when their isn't. All they had to do was say "video is inconclusive and there is not enough evidence to overturn". We wouldn't have liked it but it would have been a case of that's the rule and fair enough. Instead by claiming there is concrete evidence to prove their case and not being able to produce it - even the neutrals are 50-50 about was it or wasn't it - the NRL again proves that it isn't up to speed.

Then again, Atkins is about as bright as a single glow worm in Khazad-Dum so it's hardly a surprise.

It was clear as day. There was nothing inconclusive about it. They got everything right from the process to the final decision.

You are wrong. That's all there is to it.

 

[blue bags]

Hey get IT
Ball was on the ground
What
C'mon
I'm not blind
Ball On the ground
What
C mon
Bigger TVs
Bigger one's
Needs to be an investigation
Is The best we have
Needs better one's

 

[since77]

It's hilarious that people are still talking about this. No try. Proven beyond any doubt expect for those too stupid or pigheaded to change their mind.

 

[Dodgy]

I go for the Carolina Panthers. I still have a sore bottom over getting reamed by the refs in Super Bowl 50. I'm not going to deny anyone their hurt.