Vatuvei No Try

[The Devil]

These commentators are f*cking kidding themselves when they thought that Vatuvei had scored this try..

Even with a clear view of the knock on from the beginning on the replays they went on ranting and raving about how it is a T-R-Y try for them..

Not only that, but they then go on an talk about how Brian Noble has the video referee's "in his pocket" and how the Kiwi's were robbed..

 

[aussies1st]

WOW the English commentators actually not being bias. Thats a first.

 

[Misanthrope]

The first 'no try' should have been allowed, but the second one (involving Carney's only decent piece of play of the night) wouldn't have been given downunder. Vatuvei didn't have control and it looked like his leg was on the line.

 

[AuckMel]

At no stage did I think he went out, but he didn't look to have control of the ball.

BOD has hardly been given to the attacking side all year.

 

[The Devil]

But his left arm had clearly pushed the ball downwards where he did not have any control of the ball..

In relation to him going out, his boot seemed to brush the sideline.. but i didn't look much into that..

 

[c_eagle]

How the hell can anyone say the first try should have been given? It was as clear as knock ons get. I'd have given the second try but I can see why he didn't.

 

[Blaze]

How the hell can anyone say the first try should have been given? It was as clear as knock ons get. I'd have given the second try but I can see why he didn't.

First one was a certain no try. "Stevo" is blind. They must have showed the replay of his hand knocking the ball forward at least 10 times and not once did they pick it up.

The second one should have been given IMO, no evidence to suggest it shouldn't have been a try, thought the grounding was good enough.

 

[Hari Kari]

I hate that tee are why $hit.

 

[Scott]

How good was Bluey's reaction after the second try was disallowed? All he could do was laugh.

 

[ledzep]

i thought the first one was a no-try, but the second one should have been given

 

[Fairleigh Good!]

The first one was a clear no try. It was clear from the first replay to the last. I can't believe the commentators kept saying it was going to be given, when clearly it wasn't.

The second one probably should have if we are using the benefit of the doubt to the attacking side ruling. We just didn't have anything like a conclusive angle on it. From the front it looked a clear try but you couldn't see his legs, and from the back he looked about three feet over the touchline, but you couldn't see the ball.

 

[playdaball]

Everybody has different opinions:

I think the 1st one was a try and the second was not.

 

[AuckMel]

Everybody has different opinions:

I think the 1st one was a try and the second was not.

Yep. I'm the other way around.

 

[League Freak™]

We really need to have the games rules re-examined.

Phrases like "control of the ball" need to be defined because its not the 1800's any more!

 

[nqboy]

The first one a try? Surely you blokes are getting mixed up. As someone said, it was about as clear a knock-on as they come.

 

[nqboy]

And the pommy commentators, don't just blame Stevo. Hemmings, Millward, the other joker, they all got it wrong despite the number of replays that were shown.

Ah well, the comedy value was entertaining at least.

 

[supersaint]

It were a clear knock on, Our commentators were clearly trying to show they weren't biased

 

[The Devil]

I've added a poll to see what people's feelings are..

I don't believe either of them were tries

 

[SpaceMonkey]

1st was a clear knock-on, no control in the grounding. The second I think should've been given benefit of the doubt. Why does that rule exist given that it's never applied?

 

[The Devil]

I don't think that the second one was a try because of the grounding..

good skill to transfer the ball.. but i fell as if he didnt have control of it and didnt apply downward pressure