Ref Watch 2014 (aka the Skeepe Thread)

[RWB]

Roosters had a legitimate try taken off them yesterday, ours didn't even get referred upstairs. Was up there with the most blatant of tries scored this week too, amazing it was overlooked.

Just glad it didn't have a say in the result of our game like it did for the Rabbits, Cowboys & now Storm.

Not a good week for the referees.

 

[stormbati]

I heard on the radio the ref telling Smith short then out in goal. The way I saw it if he WAS short then he dragged it over the line then out. Biased maybe but I thought it was an obvious try.

 

[DURRRHURRR]

The restart was from the 20m line

how is this result even possible so he landed the ball short of the line 2 feet in and then bounced to the ingoal sideline without touching the ingoal

 

[aqua_duck]

how is this result even possible so he landed the ball short of the line 2 feet in and then bounced to the ingoal sideline without touching the ingoal

Well apparently he flew about 5 metres after he grounded the ball short

 

[skeepe]

This thread is named in honour of skeepe. I'm keen to hear the great man's take on the Waqa no-try.

It's about f**king time we get a dodgy one go our way.

Pretty clear try and would have been given as such if the touchy had been doing his job properly. But we'll take it, especially since the refs gifted the Storm a try in the first half with a series of dodgy decisions.

 

[aqua_duck]

I heard on the radio the ref telling Smith short then out in goal. The way I saw it if he WAS short then he dragged it over the line then out. Biased maybe but I thought it was an obvious try.

Your not the only one, Waqa ended up a good metre or so over the side line in the in goal, apparently he bounced and flew a good 5m

 

[aqua_duck]

It's about f**king time we get a dodgy one go our way.

Pretty clear try and would have been given as such if the touchy had been doing his job properly. But we'll take it, especially since the refs gifted the Storm a try in the first half with a series of dodgy decisions.

You know the refs definitely f**ked that one up when even the great skeepe said he thougt it was a fair try

 

[cleary89]

Why was it a no try?

Because no one saw the ball get down over the line.

Can anyone provide a screen shot of it with the ball down over the line?

 

[Tayjack]

Nothing but a try. Stop trying to find ways that it wasn't.

 

[I Bleed Maroon]

Because no one saw the ball get down over the line.

Can anyone provide a screen shot of it with the ball down over the line?

Noone saw the ball get grounded...Except the 200 or so thousand people watching the camera footage front on.

Probably the single worst call I've ever seen a referee give since the Foran knock on, and that isn't even hyperbole. The fact that the refs will get a free pass because "f**k Melbourne" is the even bigger joke.

 

[user_nat]

I just can't understand how a video ref can get something like that wrong.

At least obstruction is slightly objective, but that try was straight up obvious. I wish I could get away with making mistakes like that at my job.

 

[cleary89]

Noone saw the ball get grounded...Except the 200 or so thousand people watching the camera footage front on.

Probably the single worst call I've ever seen a referee give since the Foran knock on, and that isn't even hyperbole. The fact that the refs will get a free pass because "f**k Melbourne" is the even bigger joke.

Provide a screen shot then.

 

[beave]

My god that was another shithouse call.

 

[cleary89]

I didn't watch live, only listened on the radio and then watched the highlights. But from the 3 second clip or so I didn't see the ball down over the line. If you all did, should be pretty easy to show a photo of it.

 

[DURRRHURRR]

If they said hand over (or play the ball) cause its short then fair enough but they are saying the ball has ended up going out the side of the ingoal after being planted short of the line. The result they came up with is in no way possible given where the ball was first grounded and that he was sliding the ball along the ground

 

[cleary89]

If they said hand over (or play the ball) cause its short then fair enough but they are saying the ball has ended up going out the side of the ingoal after being planted short of the line. The result they came up with is in no way possible given where the ball was first grounded and that he was sliding the ball along the ground

Thats what they said. Can you show proof that's not what happened? I.e. the ball down over the line?

 

[I Bleed Maroon]

Provide a screen shot then.

Tell me that ball is not on the turf right on top of the paint. You would have to be a complete imbecile to not be able to see that. Look where the f**king touchie is relative.

 

[user_nat]

Doesn't help that they cut the highlights before he got taken out.

 

[Jason Maher]

It looks short in that pic, but there is no way it could go from there to touch in goal without being grounded for the try in-between.

 

[ek999]

I couldn't say conclusively that he grounded it in goal so I'm happy with it. Melbourne should still have won it, can believe Vaughn stepped half the team to score