Video ref strikes again

[strider]

it is NOT a penalty try because it is WRONG to completely rule chad out of everything because he touched the guy a fraction of a second too soon

i'm sorry but they are making up sh*t by saying he suddenly is not part of the equation because he made the infringement

had the infringement not been made he would have collected him 0.5 sec later .... he might have scored, he might not have - who knows???

a penalty - YES ... maybe even a sin binning .... but it was NOT worthy of a penalty try

 

[Hurriflatch]

Robinson was close enough to stop him if Chad had waited the half a second longer until Witt caught the ball

A death threat from a Warriors fan is the only excuse I've got for Harrigan

 

[fish eel]

No one has actually come out and said "why" it wasn't a penalty try??

He dead set would have scored if he wasn't interfered with by Chad.

There is a minor doubt whether he would have caught the ball though, other than that, why not?

Suity

I disagree.

Chad was breathing down his neck. Watch the replay, the time between Chad tackling him and witt catching the ball is vey minimal. I dont think you can say, 100%, that Witt scores.

 

[Bazal]

it is NOT a penalty try because it is WRONG to completely rule chad out of everything because he touched the guy a fraction of a second too soon

i'm sorry but they are making up sh*t by saying he suddenly is not part of the equation because he made the infringement

had the infringement not been made he would have collected him 0.5 sec later .... he might have scored, he might not have - who knows???

a penalty - YES ... maybe even a sin binning .... but it was NOT worthy of a penalty try

Exactly, no way would Chad not have tackled him, and momentum stopped him short as it was so there is no way anyone can say he was certain to score. Billy has deadset made up a rule on the run again, his holier-than-thou attitude is a blight on the game, he seems to believe he can invent and twist rules any way he wishes...It was one of the worst calls I've seen

 

[spiderdan]

i don't think a penalty try was the right ruling but even though the ball hit witt's hands he was tackled without it. i thought he was gonna rule advantage play on, try to byrne.

whichever way you look at it we still won and will be playing next week. things are falling together nicely.

 

[Eelectrica]

Hollywood harrigan was getting withdrawal symptons.
Penalty, professional foul - yes. Not a penalty try 5 metres from the line.

 

[CrazyEel]

Billy has deadset made up a rule on the run again, his holier-than-thou attitude is a blight on the game, he seems to believe he can invent and twist rules any way he wishes...It was one of the worst calls I've seen

Billy has an outcome he wants then looks for a means to justify it, always has been that way. He tried awful f**king hard to find somthing wrong with the hayne try as well.

 

[parraitdoesmatta]

I cant believe the amount of times he looked back at Haynes try, he was trying to get any technicallity to disallow it.

 

[strider]

I cant believe the amount of times he looked back at Haynes try, he was trying to get any technicallity to disallow it.

f'n oath!!! .... that was absolutely disgraceful aswell

deadset .... i wanna use the ch word on bill :x

 

[sportsmad]

f'n oath!!! .... that was absolutely disgraceful aswell

deadset .... i wanna use the ch word on bill :x

now i know where Gordy was coming from.....

kill Bill vol.3 should be about a NRL referee:sch:

 

[RalthFilthy]

I though it was odd myself that the Hayne try needed so many viewings, when they look that many times it usually turns into a 50/50 call.
Harrigan is a scumbag.

 

[AlexTheEel]

No one has actually come out and said "why" it wasn't a penalty try??

He dead set would have scored if he wasn't interfered with by Chad.

There is a minor doubt whether he would have caught the ball though, other than that, why not?

Suity

Ur kidding urself.

 

[mickdo]

You can't take Chad out, you simply can't, if he waits 1 second more he still tackles him and pulls Witt down short!!!!

Not even a second. It was only about three or four frames early on the slo mo.

 

[hineyrulz]

Lucky i was at a mates house watching the game, cause i deadset would have done my TV in :x How many times did he look at Jarryd's try????? FFS Billy give yourself 1000 uppercuts.

 

[Gronk]

It was one of those incidences where if you watched it at normal speed Chad got him a pooftenth of a second early. Zero guarantee that he would have scored it though.

 

[AlexTheEel]

Exactly. The thing with penalty try is that benefit of the doubt doesnt apply. You have to be certain that the try would have been scored and there was way too much doubt on that.

Disgraceful decision.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

I think it was probably going to be a try, and as such am not complaining about the ruling. I just don't think Chad would have stopped him, and so it's a fair enough call.

 

[Stagger eel]

Exactly. The thing with penalty try is that benefit of the doubt doesnt apply. You have to be certain that the try would have been scored and there was way too much doubt on that.

Disgraceful decision.

problem was Harragon obviously had no doubt that it would of been a try and having thought about it a bit more he probably made the right call, whether we like it or not.

 

[AlexTheEel]

problem was Harragon obviously had no doubt that it would of been a try and having thought about it a bit more he probably made the right call, whether we like it or not.

It was the wrong call mate.

 

[Kornstar]

problem was Harragon obviously had no doubt that it would of been a try and having thought about it a bit more he probably made the right call, whether we like it or not.

Sorry, but that is bullsh*t!!!! Did Witt end up over the line after the infringement???? No! He was about 4 metres off.....sorry, you could not be certain he was going to score!!!! If he ended up over the line, then fair enough, he probably would have scored BUT he was pulled down a fair bit before the line.......