Sean Hampstead Video Ref Blunders

[Danny-Boy]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...fereeing-blunder/story-fnbgzo7g-1226407063492


1. Clear knock on by Inu, Hampstead awards a try.

2. Hinchcliffe crosses the line without any Storm players obstructing, Hampstead - No Try, claims there was obstruction. Replays shows Canterbury player brushing Bryan Norrie when going for a tackle. No sign of obstruction.

and if that wasn't bad enough,

3. After that decision, Canterbury get a penalty, go down field, make a break and score. Hampstead has a look, Canterbury decoy clearly takes out Storm defender (16. Vave) who had a chance to tackle Barba as he was coming across. Hampstead must be a mind reader and naturally thought a forward wouldn't be able to get to Barba - Hampstead awards a try.

 

[Fire]

Hampstead is an ex-copper. Says it all.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Yeah, cos you guys were so good at tackling Barba today.

 

[Trentosaurus]

Yeah, cos you guys were so good at tackling Barba today.

This.

Hampstead was well off his game but so were the Storm.

 

[Pistol_Pete]

Hampstead is an ex-copper. Says it all.

Still a cop
Still a kaaarnnt

 

[Evenflow]

Definitely a couple of howlers there which we've come to expect unfortunately but in saying that the Dogs were the much better team overall and deserved to win.

 

[Mr Saab]

Dogs deserved to win, but that does not hide the fact that Bumpstead should be demoted for a month for that Inu "Try"
Of course, Billy Harrigan will defend it tonight in his review on 2SM

 

[Stagger Lee]

And this is the reason we should get rid of the video ref

At least with a ref making a 'live' decision if he stuffs up then we can generally accept it because his line of sight may be obstructed or such but what is the point in slowing down our great game to have a video ref get it wrong?

 

[Canard]

We should get rid of something because according to News Ltd a News Ltd owned team got a couple of dodgy decisions?

You don't think its throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

In what era did people "accept" that on-field refs made mistakes?

Surely its better to improve the system and get it right, not get rid of it altogether.

 

[Mr Saab]

I dont want to get rid of it, but i want people in there with a clue. You seriously should not get a video decision wrong.

 

[Sam_the_man]

I'm getting sick of video refs making stuff ups' They are a blight on the game. To be fair i felt the Hinchcliff obstruction was 50/50 so i could live with it but to my eyes Inu obviously lost control of the ball and lost it forward.
These poor calls just stack up year on year.
Whats the sollution? Well i think with try scoring movements the player attemping to score should have control of the ball in the act of scoring. Do away with this separation bullshit.

 

[Jobdog]

:lol: He got the Inu try wrong? There was downward pressure from Inu's elbow (not the best way of scoring a try, but still a legitimate one) and besides, if Inu "knocks on" it was only because Quinn knocks the ball out. The ball comes back to Halatau who scores the try. Always a try, just depended on who you gave it to.

 

[Doga]

1. rule is seperation. Anyone see seperation?

2. Tolman was forced to run around a storm player.

Correct calls.

/Thread closed

 

[Apey]

Well firstly, Bulldogs being the better team has little to no relevance to shit video ref decisions.

Secondly, you'd have to be deadset geniused to think the no-try was the correct decision (setting it up for Harrigan?). There's some genuine conjecture over the Inu try, but please...

 

[The General]

Even though I think the Inu and Hinchcliffe decisions were fair calls I can see the controversy but your argument lost alot of merit when you said the Dogs try was an obstruction. Anyone who thinks that wasn't a try should stop following rugby league. It was a classic decoy run. The defender moved towards the decoy before the ball was even passed. Try 100% of the time

 

[Bluebags1908]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...fereeing-blunder/story-fnbgzo7g-1226407063492


1. Clear knock on by Inu, Hampstead awards a try.

2. Hinchcliffe crosses the line without any Storm players obstructing, Hampstead - No Try, claims there was obstruction. Replays shows Canterbury player brushing Bryan Norrie when going for a tackle. No sign of obstruction.

and if that wasn't bad enough,

3. After that decision, Canterbury get a penalty, go down field, make a break and score. Hampstead has a look, Canterbury decoy clearly takes out Storm defender (16. Vave) who had a chance to tackle Barba as he was coming across. Hampstead must be a mind reader and naturally thought a forward wouldn't be able to get to Barba - Hampstead awards a try.

Let me guess - you are a Storm supporter?

The first two decisions were definitely correct. I'll need to have a second look at the third one.

 

[dogslife]

I thought the OP was a Manly fan. To be fair, there's no way Inu scored that first try, but I would have given it to Halatau in any case, as Quinn clearly knocked the ball out and not Inu. It's also pretty apparent the OP has no idea what constitutes an obstruction either

 

[Bart_not_Brad]

Suck it up Batty-Boy! Youre the muppet that said the dogs would not win another game with keating at hb and called dogs supporters f@#kin losers. You must be burning that the dogs are going well at the moment. Eat a big fat d!ck you maggot! hahahaha These kind of decisions happen to every team on a weekly basis, you win some you lose some, move on you gronk. Go have a cry to Bill Harrigan you little b!tch! hahaha

 

[Doga]

No where in this thread do we see any Melbourne fan bitching about their own tactics...

 

[Evenflow]

Let me guess - you are a Storm supporter?

You couldn't possibly be more wrong, as mentioned he's a Manly fan and we know how much Manly fans hate Melbourne. Even so he still thinks the calls were blatantly wrong so he can hardly be accused of any bias......