THAT Video decision....

[Sea_Eagles_Rock]

I never got a good angle on it.... But I reckon his legs may have gone out anyway before he put it down.

Yeah it was a bit of mess up. What I don't get, if the touchie is that certain what happened, he should tell the ref straight out. He dropped it cold before the played the ball. Why leave until they score.

Some of the Video decisions are pretty stuffed. It's really not that hard too. It's just like last week against the Cowboys. The foot clearly hits the post and they never see it. I think they take far too much weight in what the ref is telling them to look for and are missing some obvious infringements. Tunnel vision.

 

[Pantherjim.]

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.

Yeah, pity they didn't go to the video ref for the BLATANT forward pass that sent Minichiello across the line in your boy's opening round against Souths. :roll:

Pantherjim.

 

[Boozi]

Found this on the nrl.com website:

Panthers overcome ref call to post first win

19 March 2004


Interference by the video referee threatened to overshadow Penrith's impressive 34-18 win over Canberra in tonight's National Rugby League match at Canberra Stadium.

Up until the final 20 minutes of the clash it looked like an incorrect refereeing call which robbed the premiers of a try could also cost them the game, but a late spurt of five tries ensured Penrith recorded its first win of the season.

Touch judge Ruddell Turner spotted a knock-on well before Panthers backrower Tony Puletua crossed for what would have been his team's second try of the night in the 35th minute.

Referee Sean Hampstead missed the incident and was ready to award the four points until he was alerted to it by Turner.

Video referee Phil Cooley intervened in and confirmed lock Trent Waterhouse had knocked on in the tackle prior to Puletua crossing the line.
NRL chief operating officer Graham Annesley said it was not within Cooley's jurisdiction to rule on the previous tackle.

"I've not seen it but as it's been described to me that's not part of the current policy," he said.

When Panthers captain Craig Gower questioned why the try was disallowed, Hampstead told him about the knock-on.

"I didn't see it. Lucky the touch judge picked it up," he said.
The ruling cost Penrith a try and allowed Canberra to maintain its 12-6 halftime lead.

 

[milchcow]

Whether it was a knock on or not is irrelavent, what matters is that it was not in the jurisdiction of the videor ef to decide (I'm yet to see anything siding with Melon's view)

It sets a dangerous precedent. If the panthers can have this try disallowed for a knock on in the previous tackle, what happens if their is a knockon in the first tackle, or in the previous set of 6. There has to be a limit for how far back the video ref can look and one play is a reasonable limit, other than that you just have to accept that nistakes are made.
If the try was allowed it wouldn't have been the only mistake missed by the ref in the game so why should it be singled out?

 

[Pigskin]

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.

the controversial video ref decision aside

I don't understand how they came up with no try - there were two in the tackle on Waterhouse when he lost control of the ball and ball was stripped

so even if they disallow the try, had to be a penalty to the Panthers - not a scrum feed to the Raiders

imho, thats an area of the game that needs serious looking at - there are a lot of tries especially from close range where the ball comes loose thanks to a helping hand (or even feet in some cases) from one of the multiple tacklers ..... yet the video ref's see the ball go loose and seem to turn a blind eye on whether its had any help from defenders and how many were in the tackle

i don't understand

Oink !

 

[NPK]

that article has a mistake in it - it wasn't Puletua's try that was disallowed.

 

[JoeD]

Does anyone have a copy of the rule that is relevant to this incident?

 

[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.

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

So in other words, you don't think too highly of your captain Freddy Fittler as well :shock:

After all, isn't he a Penrith Twit??????

 

[simon says]

I hate the video ref.I dont even like it for tries.As far as Im concerned they get as many wrong now as they did before....

With regards to last nights decision(which was a bloody joke).I reckon the video ref got it wrong anyway.If you look closely Adam MOgg stripped Waterhouse of the ball in a 2 on 1 tackle.He didnt lose it at all.

So what happens if he gets it right???The try gets disallowed and they get a penalty for a strip?????

I think its time to LESSEN the powers of the video ref,if they are going to have it at all,just for the in goal on tries....at least that way you will stop farcical situatoins like last night,and players going down for a penalty when they get a finger oin their face....

Cheers.

 

[Caged Panther]

I bit confused and miffed by that knock on decision anyway. I mean how many times do we see players "lose" the ball over the tryline like that only for it to be considered downward pressure and hence a try. :?

 

[Tupac Shakur]

That poor decision could have cost us the match. We have had bad luck with video refs lately. Last year down at WIN stadium when Luke Priddis was ruled a double movement when it was clearly a try, same thing happened over in England for the WCC match but this time it was Paul Whatuira and now this.

 

[Danish Moo Cow]

What I find funny is that last year the video ref was having trouble with just looking at trys week in, week out. So the powers that be gave them MORE to do this year. Just keep piling it onto the video ref when they're incapable of getting it right.

Last week's Friday night game showed Penrith starting a scuffle to get a tackle looked at and to their luck, it showed from one angle that it looked like a high tackle, then after the penalty was given on that one replay, the very next replay clearly showed there was no problem with the tackle.

Later in the game they had to look at a try for the grounding only and had to look at it 3 times when there wasn't even a need to go upstairs.

It's about time the powers that be get back to having the majority of decisions made on the field as the play happens.

 

[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.

So in other words, you don't think too highly of your captain Freddy Fittler as well :shock:

After all, isn't he a Penrith Twit??????

You are so predictable!! I knew you would use that mentality to make a point other than the one on your hollow head. No Freddy is a City Boy!! Has been for over a decade...where have you been?

 

[Matt M]

The only way I can see that the video ref is allowed to go back as far as he did is depending on when the next play starts. The ball carrying arm had touched the ground so does that immediately count as the next tackle then and there, if it does then there's no problem. But I have a feeling it doesn't.

I'm with Gus, lets have it in-goal rulings only.

 

[Macca]

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.

So in other words, you don't think too highly of your captain Freddy Fittler as well :shock:

After all, isn't he a Penrith Twit??????

You are so predictable!! I knew you would use that mentality to make a point other than the one on your hollow head. No Freddy is a City Boy!! Has been for over a decade...where have you been?

Melon, you have got to be the biggest twit on here. Big Panther cool has got you on this one. Fittler was a Penrith boy which makes him a twit according to you.

If becoming a city boy for ten years relinquishes him of that then why doesn't Gould get the same. He has been "in the city" for alot longer. :lol: Nice one Big Panther!

More importantly though and back on the subject. You came in here and ranted about the Video ref being able to go back six plays.

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.

Ah, wrong, totally wrong.

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

Yup the hole you are digging just got deeper.

Oh hang on it has something to do with interpretation.

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.

No that's wrong too. Let's see what the Ref's boss thinks.

Graham Annesley said it was not within Cooley's jurisdiction to rule on the previous tackle.

Yep you are kidding yourself as usual.

At the end of the day the try wasn't awarded and that seems to be justice for Canberra considering he DID knock the ball on. However, that sets a dangerous precedent, if you can go back one tackle then why can't you go back two, and if you can go back two why not ten or twenty? Where does it stop? The fact is, the knock on was missed just like they are every match. Too bad, the Video ref can't rule on it. He did though and therefore robbed Penrith of four points. Fortunatley Penrith went on to win the game so it was just a mistake that should be learned from.

I'll tell you something else though, if this had happened to the Roosters, Melon and his merry men would have posted double the amount of posts arguing the opposite of what they have said here.

 

[***MH***]

The video ref rules are in the NRL Operations manual, which is pretty much a redraft of the ARL International laws with NRL's interpretations and their own laws added. NRL.com will have the laws on their website in the About NRL section (coming soon)
ARL laws can be found at www.nswrl.com.au under Laws and Policies but do not contain Video Ref policies.

 

[***MH***]

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:

the thing is, that even touchies can't go back to previous infringements (i.e. knock ons, forward passes) they can only go back to previous foul play whilst giving advantage (foul play covers head high tackles, spear tackles, punch-up... basically any misconduct.... there is a difference between foul play and infringements).
to cut that short, if a ref misses a knock-on or forward pass, and a touchie calls it too late (i.e. after the next play the ball), it's just too late, it stays missed. if we were to watch a tape of a game to watch every knock-on and forward pass and then change the outcome of the game because something was missed, it's gonna piss a lot of people off and open up a can of worms.
in the same situation, if we were to stop the game after every try was scored to check to see if the last set of 6 was flawless, (and ATM the vid ref has the power to only look at FOUL PLAY ONLY and INFRINGEMENTS in the current PLAY leading up to the try in the set) its going to f**k up everything. THAT decision, in my opinion was Against the NRL policy.

 

[Macca]

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:

the thing is, that even touchies can't go back to previous infringements (i.e. knock ons, forward passes) they can only go back to previous foul play whilst giving advantage (foul play covers head high tackles, spear tackles, punch-up... basically any misconduct.... there is a difference between foul play and infringements).
to cut that short, if a ref misses a knock-on or forward pass, and a touchie calls it too late (i.e. after the next play the ball), it's just too late, it stays missed. if we were to watch a tape of a game to watch every knock-on and forward pass and then change the outcome of the game because something was missed, it's gonna piss a lot of people off and open up a can of worms.
in the same situation, if we were to stop the game after every try was scored to check to see if the last set of 6 was flawless, (and ATM the vid ref has the power to only look at FOUL PLAY ONLY and INFRINGEMENTS in the current PLAY leading up to the try in the set) its going to f**k up everything. THAT decision, in my opinion was Against the NRL policy.

So what you are basically saying is that Melon was really wrong.

 

[***MH***]

melon was half wrong (or half right, depends how you see the glass), the video can go back up to the set leading before the try for FOUL PLAY only, for INFRINGEMENTS only the play leading up to the try.

 

[Macca]

There was no foul play though so he was, as usual, totally wrong.