The Luke Roone no try.

[Bullrider]

You people who are saying it was a try. You should watch the replay and you will see watmough yelling it was a try, but the thing is rooney is still trying to get the ball down. I dont know if anyone else saw that. So i think the body language told us it wasnt a try.

 

[NPK]

Rooney had a frustrated look on his face because he couldn't put the ball on the line. Watmough was just being optomistic.

 

[steaming stormer]

It was always held up, can't believe the video sent it back to Simpkins

 

[Belly in Brisvegas]

Watmough had about 12 kids by the time he was 16....as if you would beleive him!

 

[bulldog]

I think the same level of doubt can be applied to a certain Qld try. Why wasn't that sent back to a refs call?

 

[strong_latte]

Look, if the ball was not clearly seen to have touched slaters hands and they gave hime the benifit of the doubt, then surely Rooney deserved it to!

 

[Glen]

You don't make decisions based on the facial expressions of players, so that's irrelevant. Having said that, I agree with the decision they made.

 

[Meanie]

In Rooney's try the last thing you could see before the view got obscured was Matt Sing's hands under the ball, and after that he kept trying to get it down for a good while, suggesting he was held up, therefore no benefit of the doubt because the doubt is too much.

With the Slater kick forward, on no camera angle is it conclusive that he touched the ball, therefore benefit of the doubt applies.

 

[rabs]

at one point the ball was turned so the point was facing upwards, this suggested to me that the ball touched grass or at least went so close that there was enough doubt to award it

 

[NPK]

The ball always looked short of the line to me, but it was called held up, so I guess it must have been over the line at some point?

 

[Kiwi]

Look, if the ball was not clearly seen to have touched slaters hands and they gave hime the benifit of the doubt, then surely Rooney deserved it to!

Well for starters Rooney was short when he first tried to ground the ball, And secondly there is always some element of doubt with a try that a video ref looks at. On replay some are clear cut, no problem, But if there wasn't any doubt then video refs wouldn't look at so many replays like they do with most of the tries they look at, yet we don't see every try awarded. I think it's all about the level of doubt. Take Slaters and Rooneys, a try and no try.

Slater, even with a clear view you couldn't tell if he brushed the ball with a finger tip. I honestly think that was a 50/50 call. Even bet each way so it was awarded.

Rooney, was short when he first went to ground it, had 4 QLD defenders on him, atleast 2 of those had hands on the ball holding it up when the camera lost sight of the ball. I think that was more a 90% chance he didn't get it down / 10% he did, not enough no try.

 

[rabs]

yep it was definitely over the line

 

[yappy]

Surely the benefit of the doubt only applies if the ball is over the line? At no stage did I see a replay that indicated Rooney got there. Close, but certainly not close enough to get the benefit. There were arms and legs blocking the line and every shot indicated not only held up, but short. Had he clearly got over the stripe, then you might have a case, but not this time.

On the Qld try there is no question the ball was cleanly picked up and grounded over the line. The only issue is can anyone detect a touch from Slater's hands? I looked bloody closely each time and I couldn't see one. Would have loved to, but it wasn't there. So surely benefit of the doubt has to go Qld's way.

No argument with either call.

 

[mickdo]

Rubbish. With Slater's he was making a deliberate play at the ball with his hands. There was a stack of doubt there. Every week you see players knock on when the ball comes off the shoulder with the hands in the vicinity, and they are ruled knock on every time, because the player is trying to catch it. Benefit of the doubt my ass.

 

[El Diablo]

NSW got no benefit of the doubt last year when near identical replays could not show the ball hitting Timmins' hands or arms. Seems benefit of the doubt only applies for one team.

 

[Jono078]

I thought he woulda got it down somewhere...

Where was benefit of the doubt !?!?

 

[yappy]

Rubbish. With Slater's he was making a deliberate play at the ball with his hands. There was a stack of doubt there. Every week you see players knock on when the ball comes off the shoulder with the hands in the vicinity, and they are ruled knock on every time, because the player is trying to catch it. Benefit of the doubt my ass.

On this you are 100% correct and it sh*ts me to tears. If it doesn't come off the hand or arm it ain't a knock on. Same as if it is propelled backwards - it isn't a knock on, but they get called all the time. What you are highlighting here is INCORRECT decisions from the referee. Does this mean that just because referees often make the wrong call on knock ons that we should just go with the touch rule and pull it up any time the ball is dropped?

You've virtually agreed with me. You don't say he definitely touched it - you don't claim you could 100% see that he got a hand on it. Why - because none of us can say that. The doubt is clearly there that Slater knocked on. If I was a betting man I'd say on the balance of probabilities he got a feather touch on it. But the only person that knows is Billy himself - every one else must have some pretty serious doubt. Therefore the otherwise legitimate try is given the benefit. It's how the rule should work.

Rooney's is completely different. The doubt is if he even got to the line. Are you suggesting that a try be awarded every time a player gets tackled within a few inches of the line? Very different kind of doubt, and I'm happy that the rule shouldn't work like that. If he was over the stripe and it looked as though he might have got it down, but you can't be totally sure then absolutely award the try, but when you can't even see he's got that far, then you haven't done enough and the try should correctly be disallowed.

 

[El Diablo]

The doubt is if he even got to the line.

Simpkins had no doubt he did.

 

[mickdo]

On this you are 100% correct and it sh*ts me to tears. If it doesn't come off the hand or arm it ain't a knock on. Same as if it is propelled backwards - it isn't a knock on, but they get called all the time. What you are highlighting here is INCORRECT decisions from the referee. Does this mean that just because referees often make the wrong call on knock ons that we should just go with the touch rule and pull it up any time the ball is dropped?

You've virtually agreed with me. You don't say he definitely touched it - you don't claim you could 100% see that he got a hand on it. Why - because none of us can say that. The doubt is clearly there that Slater knocked on. If I was a betting man I'd say on the balance of probabilities he got a feather touch on it. But the only person that knows is Billy himself - every one else must have some pretty serious doubt. Therefore the otherwise legitimate try is given the benefit. It's how the rule should work.

Rooney's is completely different. The doubt is if he even got to the line. Are you suggesting that a try be awarded every time a player gets tackled within a few inches of the line? Very different kind of doubt, and I'm happy that the rule shouldn't work like that. If he was over the stripe and it looked as though he might have got it down, but you can't be totally sure then absolutely award the try, but when you can't even see he's got that far, then you haven't done enough and the try should correctly be disallowed.

What a load of crap. So you think that just because those decisions aren't given every week thaqt they are wrong? :lol: It's the interpretation of the rules, and that's the way it has always been

The reason those decisions aren't given every week is because 'benefit of the doubt' does not mean if you can't prove an illegality it's a try (otherwise Rooney's should have been given as well). It means if there is only a small amount of doubt then it is a try. Now when the ball goes near the hands like that there is a HUGE amount of doubt.

In fact, you've agreed with me. You said that on the balance of probabilities he got a touch on it with his hands!!! There goes your benefit of the doubt right out the window...

 

[bulldog]

What I don't understand is how the video ref could have been confident enough to award the try in one instance where, as everyone agrees, it is almost impossible to tell if Slater knocked on, why not hand it back to the refs call? The same level of doubt exists on both incidents, yet one is handed back to the ref and the other awarded. For the record my opinion is that neither of them were tries. "Play-On" Paul Simpkins should not be referee in the next match, I'm not saying he cost NSW the game - a total lack of forward penetration and Kimmorleys ineptness were the key ingredients there.