THAT Video decision....

[***MH***]

Very dangerous precendent set in the first video decision of the game. expect to see much debate about this decision.

my interpretation is that you can't rule on previous plays (except for head-high, spear, fighting, etc.......).

it will be interesting to see what the head body's interpretation will be.

 

[Raider_69]

im under the impression that new rules allow them to look at anything in that set of 6

 

[melon....]

You can go back upto 6 plays under the new rules. No controversy at all. Ch 9 just dont know what they are talking about...as usual.

 

[ibeme]

Touch judge spotted knock-on but ref didn't hear him until try was scored. Shouldn't have gone to video ref, but touchy should have given his judgement. Basically, the touchy would have called knock on anyway, so it turned out alright in the end. They just shouldn't have gone to the video

 

[melon....]

Touch judge spotted knock-on but ref didn't hear him until try was scored. Shouldn't have gone to video ref, but touchy should have given his judgement. Basically, the touchy would have called knock on anyway, so it turned out alright in the end. They just shouldn't have gone to the video

Ibeme...read my lips...THEY CAN GO TO THE VIDEO FOR UPTO 6 TACKLES.

 

[ibeme]

Touch judge spotted knock-on but ref didn't hear him until try was scored. Shouldn't have gone to video ref, but touchy should have given his judgement. Basically, the touchy would have called knock on anyway, so it turned out alright in the end. They just shouldn't have gone to the video

Ibeme...read my lips...THEY CAN GO TO THE VIDEO FOR UPTO 6 TACKLES.

This isn't from my mouth. Matty Johns asked the video ref what the go was

Anyway, I was writing this at the same time you were writing yours so settle down

 

[NPK]

Touch judge spotted knock-on but ref didn't hear him until try was scored. Shouldn't have gone to video ref, but touchy should have given his judgement. Basically, the touchy would have called knock on anyway, so it turned out alright in the end. They just shouldn't have gone to the video

Ibeme...read my lips...THEY CAN GO TO THE VIDEO FOR UPTO 6 TACKLES.

Yea, but only for foul play - not knock-ons.

 

[***MH***]

yeah, up to 6 plays (touch judges can already do this).... but for tries???

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Penrith won easily anyway so I dont think it will create too much controversy.

 

[Anonymous]

Its just another f**k up by the Video Ref.

Honestly they get them wrong so often now, I don't know why people bother.

Which is just sad when you think about it.

 

[Kaz]

http://au.sports.yahoo.com/031204/4/9su.html

In another move video referees will now have the same power as touch judges in reporting foul play.

 

[NPK]

How is that relevant to a knock-on? that isn't foul play.

 

[I Bleed Green]

Here's the thing that I don't understand:

Why is the commentary team kicking up such a fuss?

Maybe they acted against the rules, maybe they didn't...

Quote from Gould: "Penrith were dudded in that one"

Hold on... IT WAS A KNOCK ON! THE TRY SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN SCORED REGARDLESS!!

I know there are rules and protocols, but seriously, does it matter as long as we get the decision right? :roll:

 

[axl rose]

Here's the thing that I don't understand:

Why is the commentary team kicking up such a fuss?

Maybe they acted against the rules, maybe they didn't...

Quote from Gould: "Penrith were dudded in that one"

Hold on... IT WAS A KNOCK ON! THE TRY SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN SCORED REGARDLESS!!

I know there are rules and protocols, but seriously, does it matter as long as we get the decision right? :roll:

Exactly, they get it right yet they are still having a cry. I turn the sound down usually because i cant stand them.

 

[melon....]

That depends on the interpretation of foul play. Is foul play someone laying an elbow in the backplay, or is it a mistake that wasnt picked up. A forward pass for example can be classed as foul play....if its intentional a penalty is given, if not the other team gets the ball anyway from scrum or change over. So maybe the problem is defining foul play. A knock on isnt exactly play on is it, and Waterhouse did knock it on, blatantly and the ref unfortuantely is not good enough to pick it up, nor his touchies, but in the end justice was done, regardless of the interpretation that you cant call back play after the next play the ball.

 

[Timmah]

I'm with Raiderman here, even if you can't go back according to the rules, I don't get why you all think that Penny should've gotten the try. He still knocked it on - and to be honest I wouldn't approve of my team being awarded a try after a dropsies. Fair is fair, and any Raider would've been angry if the VR said yes. Simple.

 

[Raider_69]

its damned if ya do damned if ya dont

they award the try and the ref cops it, they dont and he still cops it

 

[NPK]

I wonder if the knock-on would have been called if Penrith hadn't crossed the line and just got tackled as usual.

 

[Big Panther Cool]

You can go back upto 6 plays under the new rules. No controversy at all. Ch 9 just dont know what they are talking about...as usual.

Maybe you missed it melon, but your roosters coaching director was one of the Channel 9 team members being very vocal and animated about the decision.

 

[melon....]

You can go back upto 6 plays under the new rules. No controversy at all. Ch 9 just dont know what they are talking about...as usual.

Maybe you missed it melon, but your roosters coaching director was one of the Channel 9 team members being very vocal and animated about the decision.

We heard you the first time eggball. Never said I was a fan of Gould ever. Being an ex Cheating Dog and Penrith twit.