The Morrison "No Try"

[Fathead]

That's something I do agree with. BOTD has to go. If there is doubt, no try.

I agree with you there. BOTD MUST go with the defensive team. If not - get rid of it .

 

[Fathead]

should have been botd IMO... seems that the video refs have been looking for reasons not to award tries.. the Dragons one was awful

Man Im with you there ... The dragons were definately robbed!!!

 

[ShaiGuY]

I believe it was a no try - correct decision. They had so many camera angles and there was no conclusive angle which showed the ball touching the ground. Yes, sometimes the picture was obstructed but you would think with all those angles you could see the ball touching the ground once and it didn't so it's a no try. And I don't think it's even a benefit of the doubt decision as there was nothing to show that he did score it. Ok, it's like arguing a case of when someone is definitely held up with is back on the ground but you can't see the ball. You can't call it a try as there's nothing to show the ball even getting on the line - it would have to be guesswork. If there was a shot with Smith's arm was next to the ball between the ball and the camera then that maybe called benefit of the doubt but I don't believe it was even a benefit of the doubt decision.

 

[Y2Eel]

I believe it was a no try - correct decision. They had so many camera angles and there was no conclusive angle which showed the ball touching the ground. Yes, sometimes the picture was obstructed but you would think with all those angles you could see the ball touching the ground once and it didn't so it's a no try. And I don't think it's even a benefit of the doubt decision as there was nothing to show that he did score it. Ok, it's like arguing a case of when someone is definitely held up with is back on the ground but you can't see the ball. You can't call it a try as there's nothing to show the ball even getting on the line - it would have to be guesswork. If there was a shot with Smith's arm was next to the ball between the ball and the camera then that maybe called benefit of the doubt but I don't believe it was even a benefit of the doubt decision.

If there was footage of the ball touching the ground it would be a try not B.O.D.. thats why its B.O.D its guesswork by the video ref...

 

[LESStar58]

Why are we arguing this? It's as clear as day that he was held up!

 

[Y2Eel]

Why are we arguing this? It's as clear as day that he was held up!

because no one likes melbourne and we want the decision reversed:sarcasm:

 

[Fathead]

Its simple - If you are not 100% - and you cant be 100% in this case, then as the rule is written, the BOD must go to the attacking team.

Blame the NRL for the stupid rule, but a rule it is.

 

[BlueNGoldBlood]

It was a tough call... personally i thought BOTD should have been given, but then i am a bit bias :sarcasm:

 

[Harold Bishop]

Im a Manly fan and the game was resting on that decision, and i admit that was a try. I thought it was clear that he had made at least a small amount of contact with the ground.

 

[MSIH]

Im a Manly fan and the game was resting on that decision, and i admit that was a try. I thought it was clear that he had made at least a small amount of contact with the ground.

No way it was a try. f**k off back to Ramsay Street.

 

[mxlegend99]

Im a Manly fan and the game was resting on that decision, and i admit that was a try. I thought it was clear that he had made at least a small amount of contact with the ground.

Which shot made it clear that he made some contact with the ground?

It's no guarantee either way. Their was more evidence suggesting he didn't ground the ball then their was to suggest he did.

Not that i care either way. But IMO the decision was correct. But i don't really beleive that you should award a try if you can't even say for sure it is a try with ten thousand different camera angles and slow motion.

 

[Trollhammaren]

I'm not too fussed with the decision because i think it's very unlikely he got close to grounding that ball. By the letter of the law it should have been awarded, probably, but I don't think it was a try at all.

 

[Ice777]

I think if you ask 99% of Parra supporters if they honestly thought he got it down they'd say no because i think it was pretty obvious he didn't. Everone is calling for BOTD to be used in this decision but to the VR there was no doubt so that's not really an issue. Call me bias but to me there was no doubt he never grounded it and that's why there was no footage of it.

For those of you who saw actual footage of the ball being grounded can you tell me what you were smoking and can you give me some because it must have been good sh*t :crazy:

Anyway here's what one of the video refs had to say "On the replay the ball wasn't at any stage on the ground. We ruled it came off his hand, onto his arm and then went up from there. We ruled the ball was held up"

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20388939-14823,00.html

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

God some people are geniused. Benefit of the Doubt is for 50/50 calls. It doesn't mean you give a try unless you're absolutely certain it wasn't one. If there's absolutely no evidence that it was a try, then it's not a try! Has nothing to do with BOTD.

 

[Humphrey]

So you can sat without a single bit of doubt that he was held up?
Maybe you should apply for a video ref job!

Eels were robbed with that try and a couple of other dubious calls and if thats all the Storm can muster they are gooooorne

 

[Eskimo Sharkie]

If it were anyone other than Morrison, I'd say "T-R-Y", but given that it was Morrison, fair call.

I'm being sarcastic.....

Realistically, it was one of those 50/50 calls and I think it was a fair decision. What was more amazing was that Grothe wasn't given his marching orders after his elbow to the head of Webster.

 

[mxlegend99]

Eels were robbed with that try and a couple of other dubious calls and if thats all the Storm can muster they are gooooorne

Eels were robbed of a try when from every camera angle possible, there was not a single shot showing it grounded?

Had it gone the other way, Storm could say the exact same thing.

 

[Ice777]

God some people are geniused. Benefit of the Doubt is for 50/50 calls. It doesn't mean you give a try unless you're absolutely certain it wasn't one. If there's absolutely no evidence that it was a try, then it's not a try! Has nothing to do with BOTD.

Sanity finally prevails!!!!!! You're dead right, some people seem to think that if there's even one percent doubt then instantly it's a try when that's just not the case. There was so much more evidence to say that it wasn't a try hence it was called a NO TRY!

 

[spider]

Eels were robbed of a try when from every camera angle possible, there was not a single shot showing it grounded?.

The picture of it in todays Telegraph is quite interesting - fair call for the Eels to blow up.

 

[mxlegend99]

Does the pic show the ball touching the ground? Or just very close to it like the long shot did in the match?

I admit one shot made it look possible, but every other angle made it look as though Smith was under it at all times. Or is this photo from another angle altogether?