What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

SMH: Brian pi$$ed off big time...

Parraren

Bench
Messages
4,100
Eels rage as officials have hand in defeat
By Steve Mascord
July 25, 2004
The Sun-Herald

Video referee Chris Ward defended his decision to award Melbourne halfback Matt Orford a matchwinning try 20 seconds from full-time last night - a call Eels coach Brian Smith labelled "disgusting".

Fighting to stay in the finals race, the Eels fought back to level the scores 16-16 with just two minutes left in an incident-packed contest.

With golden-point time appearing a certainty, the Storm went the length of the field. Orford launched himself at the line despite the attention of Eels Daniel Wagon, Wade McKinnon and Nathan Hindmarsh.

The Sydney Origin rep reached over his head to touch down, with Smith claiming afterwards that Ward was the only person in the stadium who could not see McKinnon's hand between the ball and the grass.

"I viewed it from both sides," Ward told The Sun-Herald.

"The ball appeared to be on the ground from the far side but after viewing it on two occasions [I ruled] the benefit of the doubt - that the ball did hit the ground."

Smith's comments were among the most vociferous by a coach at a post-match media conference this season. "Disgusting is the word," he said. "I think all the Melbourne players had lined up for a play-the-ball, didn't you?

"I think they knew what had happened. All of our players knew what had happened.

"Certainly the bloke who made the tackle had his arm under the ball and held him up.

"It appeared as if the video referee was the only one who didn't realise what had happened.

"To come here playing under pressure to stay in the race for the finals, and to lose the way we did, on the back of decisions not made by players from either team, is just not good enough.

"If we keep playing like we did tonight and we're on the end of some crap calls, it will make it very difficult [to make the finals]."

Parramatta also questioned whether Melbourne's Matt King got the ball down inside the corner post for his 56th-minute try, and centre Dean Widders claimed he had been taken out without the ball just short of scoring seven minutes later

"[The Orford decision] was one of many tonight - some made in the box, some made on the field - that were the difference in the winning and losing of the game," Smith said.

"It wasn't decided by the players tonight . . . it's there for everyone to see. You'd just like to think the appropriate action will be taken." Orford admitted he wasn't totally sure if he had scored a fair try.

"I thought I got it down," he said. "Whether he [McKinnon] had his arm underneath it as well, who knows? There were a fair few bodies there."

The controversial finale wasn't the only thing about the game what was out of the ordinary.

Parramatta second-rower Hindmarsh turned the airwaves blue when he referred to an opponent - presumably Billy Slater - as "that f------ little c---" when being cautioned by referee Paul Simpkins in the 31st minute.

Storm coach Craig Bellamy said: "I thought their try in the second half under the posts probably came from a forward pass . . . what goes around comes around.

"That last one, from the angles that they had, they probably had to rule a try, to be quite honest."
 

strider

Post Whore
Messages
79,096
I'll agree with the video ref that there wer angles of both iffy Melbourne tries that looked like they were tries.

The King one I think the better angle showed he probably did score and hence benefit of the doubt means its a try.

However the Orford try saw the better camera angle (which showed McKinnon's hand and arm under the ball) was rejected by the video ref and he called it a try....and I'd say from McKinnon's rather pissed off reaction he was pretty certain he stopped it.

But what can you do....if you have an opinion and complain about a refereeing decision you get personally abused....so I won't say any more. :mrgreen:
 

strider

Post Whore
Messages
79,096
yeah they may have.

at the end of the day, the thing that probably cost us the game was whoever missed teh tackle on Orford for that 50 odd metre break just before the dodgy try....so - who missed that tackle and cost us the game??? :evil:
 

Glenn

First Grade
Messages
7,346
If OPSM ever need a sponsorship opportunity they need look no further than the video refs.
Like the Tigs game on Friday night all hypothetical about what may or may not have happend if different calls were made.
All I can say there has to be some doubt for benefit of the doubt :roll:
 
Messages
17,711
I agree with strider, Kings try was legitimate while orfords last try was No try. What let us down yesterday was the spate of poor penalties and some poor mistakes such as Mckinnons in goal mistake and Thormans missed tackle on Orford. Simple things cost us.
 

Eels Dude

Coach
Messages
19,065
I can't argue with the Orford decision. Wishful thinking told me 'no try' but I think it touched the ground at some stage.
 

Glenn

First Grade
Messages
7,346
Hmmm putting my blue and gold bias aside, in all honesty it still seems like there was a hand between the ball and ground...oh well, fish and chip wrappers now :|
 

TheParraboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
69,421
Just to confirm what Hindy actually said without the bleeps......

"That Fantastic little Comrade" :?
 

Twizzle

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
154,227
All the decisions looked fine to me

The rules state "benefit of the doubt"

I thoight some part of the ball had to touch the ground, even tho McKinnon had his hand under it
 

Iafeta

Referee
Messages
24,357
Well put Twizzle.

Does Smithy get a $10K slap on the wrist for that one? I kind of thought he went beyond the realms of reality in his appraisal of the video ref and went into the lunacy of being biased. Maybe someone upstairs at the Eels has told him the clock is ticking on him at Parramatta and he's not taking any loss too well these days? One can only hope for you Parramatta fans!
 

Suitman

Post Whore
Messages
56,276
Twizzle said:
All the decisions looked fine to me

The rules state "benefit of the doubt"

I thoight some part of the ball had to touch the ground, even tho McKinnon had his hand under it

I also thought that one angle clearly showed the ball touched the ground.
If it had of been a Parra try, I know what you all would have been saying.

Suity
 

Twizzle

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
154,227
We cant blame the ref, the blame should be on the guys who were head hunting, instead of trying to tackle him, about 50 metres before the try line.

Orford should never have got that far
 

Utey

Coach
Messages
19,328
Orford shouldve never gogt passed the 30. Sure his ellusive but we simply had run out of gas. Think about it its held up next play Orford slots the drop goal. We lost. Nobody expected to do so well so iam happy.
 
Top