Wtf?????

[Eelementary]

OK, I've heard a lot about Jarryd's no try decision. But the following is what gets me:

Phil Gould himself said, after watching the replays, that he thought it was a try. Rabs wasn't sure, and Sterlo said no.

So, out of three observers, one said yes, one said no and the other was uncertain...

But the question I pose is this - exactly how many times did the video ref check it? I could only watch the macth on TV, so maybe they didn't show him checking it 5 or 6 times...But he only checked it twice on the coverage I saw...

Now, surely there was sufficient doubt to check it over and over and over again?

 

[BlueNGoldBlood]

it was a no try mate, no two ways about it.

The only way it would have been given is if they only checked it the first time, as they all said it was OK, as soon as they slowed it down and analyzed the sh*t out of it, they find out he bounces it

 

[Macca_]

No try. Had he gone with 2 hands he'd have had a better chance, but got caught out with the bounce. Something he'll learn from. Had a great game and looks a very good prospect.

But no try was the correct call.

 

[Ron Jeremy]

That try would've been rewarded 10 years ago, sometimes slow motion replays can provide illusions to some situations, not saving it was a try, but as i said sometimes things aren't always what they seem in slow motion.

 

[Eelementary]

I KNOW it wasn't a try. That's not where my concenr lies.

My issue is the fact that the video referree (who are notorious for looking at even the simplest decisions at least 5 times to ENSURE they make the right call) took TWO looks at that footage and ruled on a decision.

Now, my gut instinct was with you - no try. But then in the commentary booth, watching the same footage wer all were, you had one man saying it was a try, another flat out saying no and the third was confused. Now, if it affected them in that manner, then SURELY the video ref should have taken more than 2 looks?

 

[Ron Jeremy]

I agree

 

[Macca_]

But why does it matter if he got it right?

1 look is good enough if it's the right decision.

I saw from the first look at the grounding it was no try.

 

[MrT]

Ryles scored a similar try last year to beat us. Placing the ball down it left his hand and he eventually bounced it. We just had no luck. The try get's scored we win. Tahu puts in a pathetic kick and they get good field position and Hornby kicks the WORST FIELD GOAL IN HISTORY.

 

[strider]

I complain if the video ref looks 5 million times at a try when it is evident in an earlier replay that is was or wasn't a try .... 2 looks was all that was needed - no try - fair enough.

Infact I'd go further and say - I wish the bloody video refs would just take a couple of looks MORE .... it annoys me how they take 500 looks to come to the obvious conclusion

 

[James_Hardie]

I complain if the video ref looks 5 million times at a try when it is evident in an earlier replay that is was or wasn't a try .... 2 looks was all that was needed - no try - fair enough.

Infact I'd go further and say - I wish the bloody video refs would just take a couple of looks MORE .... it annoys me how they take 500 looks to come to the obvious conclusion

I think there should be a limit. If you can't tell after looking at say 6 viewings from various angels, then refs call.

In this instance. I was sitting in the corner right next to the camera, closest person to it, and live as it happened i was calling Jarred in and was sure at normal speed that he got it down. When i got home and saw it, I couldn't help but think why oh why wouldn't you use two hands in those conditions?!

 

[Twizzle]

definatley didn't ground the ball, onew look told the story

 

[Macca_]

Actually one look at Haynes reaction told the story too.

Soon as he got up he looked at the ref. Didn't woohoo once. He knew.

 

[oldmancraigy]

And for the record, I doubt he could've got 2 hands there.....

Greenshields was there a split second afterwards - reaching with 2 hands from Hayne would've seen Greenshields get himself there first

It's a shame, because that was probably going to be Jeremy Smiths ONLY good kick EVER in first grade.

 

[AlexTheEel]

OK, I've heard a lot about Jarryd's no try decision. But the following is what gets me:

Phil Gould himself said, after watching the replays, that he thought it was a try. Rabs wasn't sure, and Sterlo said no.

So, out of three observers, one said yes, one said no and the other was uncertain...

But the question I pose is this - exactly how many times did the video ref check it? I could only watch the macth on TV, so maybe they didn't show him checking it 5 or 6 times...But he only checked it twice on the coverage I saw...

Now, surely there was sufficient doubt to check it over and over and over again?

When they check simple decisions over and over again it is an embarrassment. The first view was a little inconclusive but the second shot cleary showed a knock on.

Why would you need to look at it again?

 

[Mr. Fahrenheit]

how many times have the crew from the commentary box been wrong ("if they give this, ill jump out of a plane") there is no way u can realte the number of times a vid ref checks it to the opions of those guys - it was a NO TRY

 

[Smiggins]

I can tell you that the front on low angle replay was shown to the video ref at least 5 times plus there was another angle shown aswell. I'm not sure what made it to the final TV coverage

 

[Bazal]

Whilst I agree it was no try, I have seen far worse than that given. How about some consistency from the video refs? That's probably asking too much....

 

[eloquentEEL]

definitely no try. the only reason Gould said try is that he is very biased towards Hayne and talks him up at every opportunity. i felt that the consensus from the commentators was no try.

 

[Eelementary]

But why does it matter if he got it right?

1 look is good enough if it's the right decision.

I saw from the first look at the grounding it was no try.

I think you misunderstand me:

* One of the experienced commentators thought it was a try, while another had doubts;

* Traditionally, the video ref will look at even the simplest decision about 6 times before making a decision.


Putting these two together, you have seemingly enough doubt on the try, and yet he takes two looks at it and makes a ruling.

Now, don't get me wrong - in my opinion, it wasn't a try.

But it infuriates me - the fact that there seemingly was enough doubt, and that he went againts "tradition" by looking at it twice and making the call.

It's not consistent.

 

[Eelementary]

I ask - if it was the Roosters or Knights, would they have looked at it more times?