The Morrison "No Try"

[effnic]

As a manly fan and all time hater of the parra scum and also with this game riding on manlys future of 2006 i will say right now it should of been given benifit of the doubt.
What was the difference in round 26 with the Matai try against the storm where you cant see the ball touch the ground but benifit of the doubt was still given. I dont get it. But it still doesnt mean parra would of won it, im sure the storm crowd would of got them home in the end.

 

[nqboy]

Can anyone provide a transcript of the NRL interpretation that applies to BOTD? Seems to be a lot of hot air in this thread about what it is or isn't or should or shouldn't be but if someone could produce the guideline they use, it would go a long way to settling the issue.

 

[El Diablo]

Can anyone provide a transcript of the NRL interpretation that applies to BOTD? Seems to be a lot of hot air in this thread about what it is or isn't or should or shouldn't be but if someone could produce the guideline they use, it would go a long way to settling the issue.

Finch's reasoning http://www.nrl.com.au/News/Latest/NewsArticle/tabid/76/NewsId/2938/Default.aspx

Finch Finds "No Try" Decision Correct

Monday, September 11, 2006 - 4:28 PM
Referees coach Robert Finch has reviewed Parramatta’s disallowed second half try at Olympic park in Melbourne.

The review today found that the both the referee and the sideline official were of the opinion that the Parramatta player was ‘held-up’.

Video from several angles showed the ball on the knee of a defender and an arm under the ball.

The video review found no evidence of the ball touching the ground.

The review found insufficient justification for the video referee to have given a ‘benefit of the doubt ruling’ given that to make such a call the video referee must be able to see all aspects of the scoring attempt on video.

The review today suggested the video referee, were he not satisfied that the player was held up could have opted for a ‘refs call’ decision. In any event this still would have resulted in a ‘no try’ decision.

Media should note that it was not the intention to continue a formal referees report throughout the finals but certainly we will seek clarification where requested.

In the spirit of this, referees coaching staff have looked into the circumstances of the ‘sin-bins’ on Friday nights and have supported the referee in both instances.

“Players have to leave matters to the referee to determine on the field,” Mr Finch said.

“You can’t have people rushing in regardless of the circumstance and you can’t have players deciding what action needs to be taken over indiscretions.

“I would expect all referees to enforce the same standards going forward.”
Source: NRL

 

[nqboy]

That's something but it is just Finch's interpretation (he's got his own rules wrong this year on at least one occasion).

 

[Michaelson]

The review found insufficient justification for the video referee to have given a ‘benefit of the doubt ruling’ given that to make such a call the video referee must be able to see all aspects of the scoring attempt on video.

Wow, what an almighty stupid rule. This basically means: Benefit of the doubt applies when there is no doubt because the video ref can see everything he needs to. Where the video is insufficient and doubt exists, however, benefit of the doubt does cannot be applied.

So anyway, if that's technically the application of the rule, then the video ref was correct not to award BOTD, I would then argue it should have been Ref's Call.

The 'No Try' ruling was poor, and I'm surprised anyone can look at the video and suggest otherwise. Forget about the people claiming you can clearly see the ball grounded for a second, because obviously you cannot. What you can see is the ball go down on the leg of Smith, and Morrison rolls over it and the ball rolls off the leg. The question is whether it rolled off the leg, onto the ground, and then onto Smith's arm; or whether it rolled off the leg and straight onto Smith's arm.

Looking at the video, I'm inclined to think that the ball rolled onto the ground first. From the front on angle you can certainly see the ball rolling UP onto Cameron Smith's arm. From the side on angle you can see the ball on Smith's thigh, and you can also see that Smith's arm doesn't come through until quite a bit later.

You cannot see the ball touch the ground, but I believe there is more reason to think it did than it didn't. If that's not a situation where benefit of the doubt should apply, then what an almighty stupid rule.

 

[innsaneink]

Wow, what an almighty stupid rule. This basically means: Benefit of the doubt applies when there is no doubt because the video ref can see everything he needs to. Where the video is insufficient and doubt exists, however, benefit of the doubt does cannot be applied.

So anyway, if that's technically the application of the rule, then the video ref was correct not to award BOTD, I would then argue it should have been Ref's Call.

The 'No Try' ruling was poor, and I'm surprised anyone can look at the video and suggest otherwise. Forget about the people claiming you can clearly see the ball grounded for a second, because obviously you cannot. What you can see is the ball go down on the leg of Smith, and Morrison rolls over it and the ball rolls off the leg. The question is whether it rolled off the leg, onto the ground, and then onto Smith's arm; or whether it rolled off the leg and straight onto Smith's arm.

Looking at the video, I'm inclined to think that the ball rolled onto the ground first. From the front on angle you can certainly see the ball rolling UP onto Cameron Smith's arm. From the side on angle you can see the ball on Smith's thigh, and you can also see that Smith's arm doesn't come through until quite a bit later.

You cannot see the ball touch the ground, but I believe there is more reason to think it did than it didn't. If that's not a situation where benefit of the doubt should apply, then what an almighty stupid rule.

Harrigan said last nite in the end it shouldve gone to refs call.....and that if it did Clark wouldve ruled "held up".
The video shows that was the touchies initial thoughts as well...no try.

 

[Michaelson]

Harrigan said last nite in the end it shouldve gone to refs call.....and that if it did Clark wouldve ruled "held up".
The video shows that was the touchies initial thoughts as well...no try.

Yep, that's in the article above as well.

I just think Morrison got the ball down and that there's enough evidence in the angles provided that on any reasonable interpretation of 'benefit of the doubt to the attacking team' it should have been awarded a try.

Somehow, though, I doubt that my view counts for much. Especially two days after the event.

 

[Parraren]

As a manly fan and all time hater of the parra scum and also with this game riding on manlys future of 2006 i will say right now it should of been given benifit of the doubt.
What was the difference in round 26 with the Matai try against the storm where you cant see the ball touch the ground but benifit of the doubt was still given. I dont get it. But it still doesnt mean parra would of won it, im sure the storm crowd would of got them home in the end.

Agree 100% with everything you've said there, including the fact that even if it was awarded it doesn't mean Parra would have gone on to win the game. They may have, but the Storm may have also fired up and scored again....we'll just never know now.

One thing is for certain though, if they are not going to give 'benefit of the doubt' on these sorts of 'possible tries' then they should scrap the rule all together.

 

[newtownbluebags]

*NO TRY*

 

[Big_Bad_Shark_Fan]

Doesnt matter.
Not like it was a big decision.
Only cost Parra there season.

 

[Ice777]

Doesnt matter.
Not like it was a big decision.
Only cost Parra there season.

Are you serious or taking the piss? I hope it's the latter because if it's not then that was a stupid comment to make :sarcasm:

 

[Michaelson]

Are you serious or taking the piss? I hope it's the latter because if it's not then that was a stupid comment to make :sarcasm:

Parra scored one try, had the Morrison one disallowed, and were a bee's dick from scoring two more in the second half. The Storm, by contrast, offered very little indeed. The try was hugely important, only an imbecile would argue otherwise.

 

[JJ]

it's called sarcasm boys...

I stick by BOTD - if Harrigan argued it should have been ref's call (and we know Harrigan is never wrong :roll, then I'd be interested in knowing when exactly benefit of the doubt should apply (as the more definitive pics emerged after the event)

 

[Ice777]

Parra scored one try, had the Morrison one disallowed, and were a bee's dick from scoring two more in the second half. The Storm, by contrast, offered very little indeed. The try was hugely important, only an imbecile would argue otherwise.

I'm not saying the try wasn't important, what i am saying there's no way at all you can say it definitely cost them the game. Had they scored they might have kicked it out on the restart, Storm may have made more of their opportunities. Parra may have scored 2 more tries, Storm may have scored 3 more, the ball may have bounced this way, that way, it might have went to golden point etc etc etc, blah blah blah, guess guess guess.

My point is nobody can say conclusively that the no try cost Parra the game because there's no way of knowing that for sure and only an imbecile would argue otherwise ;-)

 

[parrachick11]

We all know deep down, any other time in the season - it would of been BOTD. Just think about Andrew Ryans 'no try' against Manly a couple of weeks ago, they came out and said they were wrong...try should of being given. I can't see the difference...

We all know that Melbourne Storm are on their own set of rules...they are the NRLs little project. Last year I went and watched Parramatta play in Melbourne - I was in a few pubs 100m down from the stadium and hardley anyone knew what my jersey was...now they are getting a full house - we know what they spent their $100k from winning the minor premiership - rent a crowd. Melbourne will win this year - all thanks to the NRL...

 

[Eelectrica]

I think the video ref was correct. I don't think he grounded it.

 

[Ice777]

We all know that Melbourne Storm are on their own set of rules...they are the NRLs little project. Last year I went and watched Parramatta play in Melbourne - I was in a few pubs 100m down from the stadium and hardley anyone knew what my jersey was...now they are getting a full house - we know what they spent their $100k from winning the minor premiership - rent a crowd. Melbourne will win this year - all thanks to the NRL...

This is a perfect example of what illicit substances do to you people. They make you talk out and out bullsh*t and utter drivel. Just say NO! :crazy:

 

[Parraren]

http://rapidshare.de/files/32703169/morrison2.avi.html

Both angles.

Just had a close look at this.

The front on camera angle looks like he's held up, BUT there is a half a second or so where the view of the ball is blocked by Webster coming across, then we see Smith's arm under the ball. Based on this NO TRY.

The side on camera angle shows the half second of footage which is obscured by Webster in the front on view. This IMO shows Morrison grounding the ball as it slides over Smiths leg just before Smith gets his arm under the ball. Based on this view I say TRY.

Benefit of the doubt should have applied and it should have been awarded.

 

[kia ora storm]

I'm not saying the try wasn't important, what i am saying there's no way at all you can say it definitely cost them the game. Had they scored they might have kicked it out on the restart, Storm may have made more of their opportunities. Parra may have scored 2 more tries, Storm may have scored 3 more, the ball may have bounced this way, that way, it might have went to golden point etc etc etc, blah blah blah, guess guess guess.

My point is nobody can say conclusively that the no try cost Parra the game because there's no way of knowing that for sure and only an imbecile would argue otherwise ;-)

I wish Parra had scored then Storm might have woken up and shown the form required for finals league...

 

[waltzing Meninga]

I reckon the NRL should install a small camera in the actual footy so we can see what is happening in those situations where the view is completely obstructed.