So was Mellars out?? Here's what the ref thinks!

[LeagueNut]

Consider the exchange between referee Tony Archer and video referee Chris Ward following a superb defending cover tackle by Melbourne's Billy Slater that resulted in New Zealand winger Vince Mellars edging his left foot onto the sideline. As the touch judge threw up his flag, Mellars threw a desperate pass infield that was finally scooped up by Tony Martin.

The Melbourne defence hesitated, the touch judge quickly lowered his flag and Martin, a former Storm player, carried the ball over the line to claim a try.

Archer to touch judge: "Do you want me to check it?"

Nod from touch judge.

Storm winger Matt Geyer, pointing at touch judge: "He's got his flag up. You can't play on from that."

Archer, shooing Geyer aside, protesting crowd noise is impeding communication: "I can't hear, I can't hear."

Archer to Ward, whose comments are not heard on Sports Ears: "Send it back down if you can't tell."

A brief discussion follows, with Archer saying: "Yep, yep."

Presumably, Ward and Archer are debating what to do, aware the Melbourne defence had hesitated momentarily when the flag was raised.

Archer to Ward: "Don't do it, mate." It can be interpreted as meaning the video referee is going to award a try.

Finally, aware they have to dig themselves out of the hole that had been created by referring it to the video referee, Ward makes the only decision he can and "Referee's call" flashes up on the screen.

Archer sets a scrum and awards Melbourne the feed. Mercifully, the process to reach a decision that had already been effectively made took just 30 seconds, almost a record in an age when video officials deliberate for so long some insects are born, marry, take out mortgages and die.

:?
So basically the video ref was happy to award a try (and I agree that it should have been awarded!!) but couldn't, even though that is supposed to be his job.
Thank God it didn't affect the result!

 

[Rudolph]

Well that was not a try Mellars had his foot on the line. (but i have seen worse)

Also the Te mata? no-try wasn't either Meli clearly knocked it forward.

How much of the game was taken up with the ref not being able to make a decision for himself made a decent game bloody boring. Come guys yes the video ref is there but do u really need every time.

 

[AuckMel]

BOD to the attacking team.

How anyone could tell whether he was out or not, is beyond me.

 

[kier]

The call I was most annoyed with was the Storm try....it was eventually placed on the FOURTH attempt! Since when did the NRL decide to re-write the momentum rule on try scoring?

 

[Iafeta]

The fact his foot was scraping along the chalk was probably how they could decide. I would rather be proactive towards the club and its players and work on Vince working on his positioning and able to put another player away, and also he had the ball in the wrong hand for a fair percentage of his carry - I would rather be proactive than take the easy way of criticising the referee for what I personally believe was a fair call.

Meli knocked his one a metre forward, Costigan and co need to visit the optometrist to think any different. Infact, they probably should get a reprimand of being too biased on that particular call.

The Bell try was a try - he never completely came to a halt.

The video ref got it all right - and in my opinion, Archer had a good game compared to most others going around at the moment.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Don't agree on the Te Mata ruling, for mine Meli initially propelled the ball backwards but it floated forwards as he was moving at the time. A line-ball decision at best and the benefit should have gone to the attacking side, as it did with the Bell try. The other decisions were fine, Mellars had his foot on the chalk, so was out.
But in the end who cares? We won.

 

[LeagueNut]

I still reckon Mellars never touched the chalk and had both feet in the air when he threw the ball infield (and that's with both eyes open!!) ... but SpaceMonkey is right, we won so who cares!

But it's pretty comical that (a) a touchie can 'change his mind' and let play continue, and (b) the video ref couldn't give the decision he wanted to.

 

[AliN]

i't would've been different if the 50/50 calls had decided the match.
Once the decision is made, no matter if the players agree or not, they have to put it behind them.
That must be tough and good on the Warriors for doing just that even if they didn't agree..

 

[NZ Warrior]

Not that it matters now, but you can clearly see Mellars kick up some turf inches from the sideline before his boot goes airbourne ABOVE the chalk. And he doesn't scrape any turf until the ball is out of his grasp. The try should have been awarded and that damn touchie shouldn't have put his flag up.

Mellars does have some work to do though, bombed a couple of chances there. But he'll be better off for that run and gets another chance against the Cowboys.

 

[Anonymous]

The fact his foot was scraping along the chalk

Don't know how you could tell, I watched it over and over and couldn't tell whether his foot was touching the line or not. I agree with LeagueNut, I thought it might have been an inch or two off the ground. What annoyed me was that the video ref kept watching in slow motion. It would have been much easier to tell at normal speed.

 

[Phillips]

it was a fair try to Mellars, video refs these days are getting worse, and if he could'nt tell if he's foot was over the touchline, benifit of the doubt should have gone to the attacking team in this case the warriors.....but he should of passed the ball to the support players #-o

 

[Te Kaha]

Did I thnk it was a fair try...........Yes
Should it have been awarded...... No

The second the touch judge had his flag up imediatly cancelled out the try. By allowing the play on you undermine the cardinal rule of playing to the whistle, or in this case the flag. If one single storm player had stoped as a result of seeing the flag, it would have made the try grossly unfair. It is also why I believe that Archer instructed the Video ref to put up a "Refs Call".

 

[Skinner]

You are right Te Kaha. It would have made a complete mockery of
the literally hundreds of tries that have been disallowed because the
touchy has stuck his flag up even when then the ball carrier has, in
reality, been no where near the line. Touchies make mistakes the same
as players and refs do but their call is, and should be, final. Having refs
and video refs over-ruling their calls just opens a can of worms.

Cheers
Skinner

 

[JoeD]

Did I thnk it was a fair try...........Yes
Should it have been awarded...... No

The second the touch judge had his flag up imediatly cancelled out the try. By allowing the play on you undermine the cardinal rule of playing to the whistle, or in this case the flag. If one single storm player had stoped as a result of seeing the flag, it would have made the try grossly unfair. It is also why I believe that Archer instructed the Video ref to put up a "Refs Call".

I agree as well. i thought it was a fair try but could never have been awarded because the touchie put his flag up. Him doing that is the same as the ref blowing the whistle, play has to stop. Why the touchie even put his flag back down again is the mystery.

 

[LeagueNut]

The second the touch judge had his flag up imediatly cancelled out the try. By allowing the play on you undermine the cardinal rule of playing to the whistle, or in this case the flag. If one single storm player had stoped as a result of seeing the flag, it would have made the try grossly unfair. It is also why I believe that Archer instructed the Video ref to put up a "Refs Call".

Dead right ... but I still wonder why Archer went up to the video ref in the first place. Did he just need a breather??

 

[AuckMel]

The second the touch judge had his flag up imediatly cancelled out the try. By allowing the play on you undermine the cardinal rule of playing to the whistle, or in this case the flag. If one single storm player had stoped as a result of seeing the flag, it would have made the try grossly unfair. It is also why I believe that Archer instructed the Video ref to put up a "Refs Call".

Dead right ... but I still wonder why Archer went up to the video ref in the first place. Did he just need a breather??

It states in the article that, Archer asked the TJ if he wanted him to check it.

 

[LeagueNut]

True AuckMel, but even if it was blatantly a fair try it couldn't have been awarded anyway. It's a bit of a catch-22.

 

[NZ Warrior]

You play to the whistle, not the flag.

 

[Te Kaha]

You play to the whistle, not the flag.

It amounts to the same thing. Have you never played the game?

Just like every Warriors supporter complaining when the try was awarded to Manly a couple of years ago after the touchie put his flag up and then down again.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

You play to the whistle, not the flag.

It amounts to the same thing. Have you never played the game?

Just like every Warriors supporter complaining when the try was awarded to Manly a couple of years ago after the touchie put his flag up and then down again.

I disagree. You play to the whistle, and only the whistle. The touch judge is there to communicate with the referee, not the players, the ONLY authority that the players should be paying attention to is the referee's whistle. Martin did the right thing in keeing going and claiming the try. Bad call by the touchie to put his flag down again, he should stand by his own judgements, howver if the try had been awarded the Storm players had only themselves to blame for not playing to the whistle.