Only one word to describe it:

[CULLUS.ONLINE]

ROBBED

That was a try! That was a f*****g try!

Oh well.
Hey, the good news is that our 2/3, or even 1/3 requirements are still 100% intact for us to make the finals!

Just hope penrith wins!

 

[thuganomics]

Im not confident it was a try, i was leaning more towards no try. But i was cherring you guys on all the way. And im a knights supporter, you would think i would want you to lose to give my side a little chance of hope.

 

[tigpie]

Im not confident it was a try, i was leaning more towards no try.

But you didn't know, did you? And neither did Dickhead Mander. In the case of doubt, what is the rule? Who is supposed to get the benefit of the doubt?

 

[thuganomics]

Im not confident it was a try, i was leaning more towards no try.

But you didn't know, did you? And neither did Dickhead Mander. In the case of doubt, what is the rule? Who is supposed to get the benefit of the doubt?

Im sure his elbow went out before he planted it.

 

[t-ba]

Im sure his elbow went out before he planted it.

Couldn't tell though ;-) .

Benefit of the doubt is supposed to be absolute. Either change it to the Video refs interpretation or stick to the letter of the law!

 

[mikey]

Im sure his elbow went out before he planted it.

Couldn't tell though ;-) .

Benefit of the doubt is supposed to be absolute. Either change it to the Video refs interpretation or stick to the letter of the law!

Exactly, as Sheens aid if you've got to look at it six or seven times then benfit of the doubt must apply.

I'm sure one shot showed he got it down before his arm touched the sideline.

 

[westie]

The way I look at is this: The two zoomed in shots that showed the incident were impeded. One by the corner post and one because the camera was too high. Thus there was no evidence to show his elbow was in touch and benefit of the doubt should have come into play.

 

[Tigerpete]

I am left to wonder why that rule is even in place after last night. I mean , we obviously didnt get the benefit of the doubt as the rule states we should've .

Still i think the rule should be scrapped. Unless you can prove its a try the benefit of the doubt must always go to the defense , not like the dumb rule currently is.

 

[jirskyr]

I think the rule needs to be re-clarified. When introduced it was a very definite rule, where refs were instructed to defn award a try if in doubt. But its become a very grey area lately.

 

[Balmainia]

i only saw the second replay of it this morning on the footy show and I thought the elbow touched first

 

[tigpie]

What did they think on the Footy Show?

 

[steven_tiger]

they all said no try... but the guys from 2gb said benefit of the doubt try.

i can see why it was called no try... but f@$k... i wish is was a try! :evil: #-o