Somebody stop Gus

[aarondoyle]

I hate Gould. He just latches on to all the negatives of a game and repeats them, over and over. It's like the more he whinges and b*tches the more he thinks they'll change the rules just for him.

It really starts killing the atmosphere. Brings you down. You start questioning that RL is crap after the 20th time you hear it. I wouldn't e surprised if he drove more people away than any cotroversial rule change.

He should never be in game commentator.

 

[Quidgybo]

Melbourne deserved to win but Inu's try was clearly benefit of the doubt.

There is no way you could say with any certainty whether his foot touched the line first or not.

Absolutely right. There was not a single frame of video where his foot was clearly on the line and the ball clearly in the air. The last frame that showed the ball in the air showed his foot not touching the line. The next frame showed the ball clearly down and his foot probably touching the line. Despite the strident assertions of some people in this thread, we can never be certain whether it was simultaneous contact or one happened before the other. The truth lies in the lost moment halfway between two frames of slow motion video. But based on what we have it's too close to call. Therefore under the current video ref laws it's the benefit of the doubt - Try.

Leigh

 

[kia ora storm]

Gould is anti-melbourne and generally negative in his commentary...get rid of him.

 

[dio]

what bandwagon did he jump on:roll: f@#k of gus we dont want you

 

[The Engineers Room]

I don't think it was as clear as you are all making out. There looked to be seperation between the line and his foot. And the angle doesn't show it that clearly.

 

[Twizzle]

it was just another typical Gus ranting effort

he should be banned from microphones, he spoils the game for me

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

I thought he was right on the Inu try.

Why bother with BOD..

 

[Grail]

Tonight he debated the Inu no-try, saying it should have been, even though inu's foot was clearly on the line, then he went looking for an excuse to disallow Kings second try.

Gould has always been an advocate for "If there is skill there, give a try". Especially when Harrigan is the video ref. It was obvious that Inu's foot was on the line, just, but on the line. But Gould wants effort rewarded at the expense of the rules.

As for King's second try, well IMO that was a definite no try, as he clearly dropped it and never regained control. But it was moot anyway.

The other thing that you have to look at with regard to Gould is the agenda that he is pushing. Gould has never gotten over the SL split, and would have loved nothing than an Eels/Eagles GF - two of the ARL stalwarts would have been much better in Gould's mind than one of the SL babies.

The better team won on the day however.

 

[Grail]

Oh poor parra!
Listen, if Parramatta have been so hard done by the referees this year, please explain why they have received the most penalties throughout the year in the NRL.

Because the Eels dummy-half runners are better than any other team at catching the markers not square and players off-side. They run at those players forcing the ref's hand.

I think you'll find that's where the majority of the Eels penalties this season came from. The ref has no option but to blow the whistle when it is that obvious.

 

[Simo]

Inu was clearly out, I couldnt believe the crap gould went on with 'no you cant take that away from him'....yes you can when he steps out.

So close on 2 occasions, would have made it interesting had he got over for one of them.

Good game.

 

[Quidgybo]

Why bother with BOD..

Because that's the rule and it is actively applied in the modern game. If it was just a rule that was never applied then no issue. But it is used in other matches and the rule exists for a reason - as a way to make decisions when it is too close to call. Just like this situation. There is no way those replays showed clearly whether the ball was down first or he touched the line or if both happened simultaneously. This is precisely the situation that the Benefit of the Doubt rule is designed to resolve. Consistently and predictably. If in doubt - Try.

Incidentally anyone else noticed that the Benefit of the Doubt rule makes the Ref's Call video ruling redundant? By definition if the ref had enough doubt to hand it to the video and the video hasn't got enough clear evidence to make a call then there is unresolved doubt that should should always benefit the attacking team and hence result in a Try. Any other ruling by the on field ref after the video ref hands it back is just plain wrong in an age where the benefit of the doubt rule exists and is actively applied.

Leigh.

 

[Grail]

Incidentally anyone else noticed that the Benefit of the Doubt rule makes the Ref's Call video ruling redundant? By definition if the ref had enough doubt to hand it to the video and the video hasn't got enough clear evidence to make a call then there is unresolved doubt that should should always benefit the attacking team and hence result in a Try. Any other ruling by the on field ref after the video ref hands it back is just plain wrong in an age where the benefit of the doubt rule exists and is actively applied.
.

Of course BoD and Ref's Call are contradictory. BoD is a stupid rule. BoD should benefit the defending team IMO. If that were the case, much of the confusion would be taken away. You could only award a try if you were 100% correct. With the current rule, you can get 2 decisions in a game that you can't tell, and they use BoD for 1, and No Try for the other.

If there is doubt, and it's no try, I think the game would be much better for it.

 

[Quidgybo]

Of course BoD and Ref's Call are contradictory. BoD is a stupid rule.

No, benefit of the doubt exists for a very good reason - to provide a consistent, predictable resolution to line ball situations. And it has been part of the rulebook (albeit an obscure part until recently) for decades, if not since day one. The Ref's Call is the "blow-in" rule and one that was redundant from the day it was introduced.

BoD should benefit the defending team IMO. If that were the case, much of the confusion would be taken away.

No it wouldn't. While video officials continue to pretend there is clear cut footage of events where things are plainly too close to call without doubt you will continue to have a lottery of unpredictable Try and No Try rulings regardless of which way the doubt is supposed to apply. Instead of having random No Try rulings poping out where things are 50-50 and should have been ruled Try - BoD, you'll get random Try rulings poping out where things are 50-50 and should been ruled No Try - BoD.

That said, I've always thought the Benefit of the Doubt rule should apply in favour of the defense, not the attack. As with cricket where the doubt goes in favour of not changing the scoreboard (by giving the batsman out), I think the benefit in RL should always be in favour of the status quo. If you can't put points on the board without doubt then you can't put points on the board. Neither the referee or the rules should be helping you change the state of the game if you're not good enough to do it in your own right.

Leigh.

 

[nqboy]

I thought Inu's foot was on the line, no try.

I support BOD but think the interpretation suffers from a lack of understanding by many people and consistency in it's use.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

The Inu no-try was the correct call for mine

HOWEVER, the real point here for me is that when a decision is so close and you have arguments on both sides, it's totally unfair to bag out the refs. They can never win if they are damned if they do and damned if they don't on every contentious play. Save your baggings for the undisputed shockers.

 

[Simo]

The Inu no-try was the correct call for mine

HOWEVER, the real point here for me is that when a decision is so close and you have arguments on both sides, it's totally unfair to bag out the refs. They can never win if they are damned if they do and damned if they don't on every contentious play. Save your baggings for the undisputed shockers.

I guess this is why we will never have a 'correct' way of ruling. I am in amazement that anyone could even suggest his foot didnt touch the line before he scored, to me it was clear as day that the frame before the ball touches the ground his right foot was on the line.

However there are people here watching the exact same footage who think otherwise and would say im a goose.

A ref can never win.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

No, benefit of the doubt exists for a very good reason - to provide a consistent, predictable resolution to line ball situations.

EXACTLY

For mine, the Inu no-try was about 90% a no-try. His foot almost certainly touched the line although maybe, through some freak occurrence, it was actually 1mm above the grass the whole way. In that situation it has to be a no-try for mine.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

I guess this is why we will never have a 'correct' way of ruling. I am in amazement that anyone could even suggest his foot didnt touch the line before he scored, to me it was clear as day that the frame before the ball touches the ground his right foot was on the line.

However there are people here watching the exact same footage who think otherwise and would say im a goose.

A ref can never win.

Yep. And it's amazing how ref-bagging has increased in recent years. It's a strange phenomenon, maybe it says something deep about our society, I dunno.

Thing is, 99% of the ref bagging occurs in relation to decisions which themselves are debated amongst the fans- therefore, every time a referee has a close call to make, he is guaranteed to be rubbished regardless of his decision.

It's amazing how often everyone agrees that the ref had a shocker, but they can't actually agree on what decisions he got wrong.

 

[OzDave]

Gould is detrimental to any positive promotion that the NRL needs. He is biased and knowledgeable, a problematical combination as he can often attempt to bludgeon others with seemingly learned explanations which when examined more closely, often contain inaccuracies and exaggerations.
I'm comfortable in my decision to never listen to him by taking the radio broadcast (even though it is slightly ahead of the Nine broadcast) and never watching the Nine league shows on Sunday. A measure of his ego was his Sun Herald article following the Joey Johns drug interview the previous Thursday night. 90% of it was about how well he (Gould) handled the situation and how he warned Joey that he needed to go public or the media would take it out of his control. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Gould part of the media?
The judgement of the penalty try in the Warriors game? Gould responded in commentary by yelling "NO" 9 times. Brilliant stuff Phil.
Disallowing Inu's try is a non event. It was handled well and correctly. Gould again demonstrably wrong. This from today's SMH:

"Krisnan Inu's foot touched the line two frames before he got the ball down," Harrigan said. Eels coach Michael Hagan said: "I think that try had to be scored at that time. It was fair to say he was probably out. We had to score that try for sure."

So, the video ref and the Parra coach agreed. But just wait for Gould to continue on through the week about it.

 

[mongoose]

I found it funny when Gould was ranting on in the first half about how you can't go around the Eels, you have to go through them up the middle. So how did Melbourne score their first try? spreading it out wide and creating an overlap.