Harrigan - please explain

[silvertail]

NRL referees' boss Bill Harrigan admitted on Monday a video refereeing blunder cost the Sydney Roosters a legitimate try in their 18-10 loss to Manly, but the tryscorer himself believes it didn't decide the game.

With Manly leading 16-10 at Brookvale Oval on Sunday, Roosters halfback Daniel Mortimer crossed under the posts for a potentially match-levelling try but was cruelly denied by video referee Pat Reynolds moments later.

Reynolds ruled that Roosters second-rower Brad Takairangi, who was placed on report, had used his elbow in a dangerous manner against Manly's Daniel Harrison when attempting the offload which led to Mortimer's try.

But Harrigan admits the video referee erred in hitting the red button and that the Roosters should have been awarded the crucial try.

"The video referee got this call wrong," Harrigan said on NRL.com

"It should have been ruled a try to the Roosters.

"The video referee believed that there was a raised elbow from the ball carrier in the lead-up to Daniel Mortimer crossing the line, but he got the decision wrong."

 

 

[Canteen Worker]

So forwards are now allowed to lead with the elbow and take opposing players out??

 

[dceagle]

Harrigan has been a Rooster Booster for many years now

 

[silvertail]

Cannot believe that Harrigan came out with these statements.

 

[SP_Eagle]

Gotta love how he gives no explanation as to why.... What Bob Fulton said about this goose is right !

 

[silvertail]

The club should seek an explanation from him.

 

[KOMORI]

What_game_did_Hollywood_watch????

Goose.

 

[bones]

I thought it was a try as well.

 

[manlywarringah]

You can't put your elbow into someone's jaw and get away with it.

If that was done on the 50 metre line, it would've been a penalty and the guy put on report.

 

[bones]

It happens plenty of times every match and nothing is done.

 

[Garts]

Braith was right and so is Harrigan, should have been a try. If the shoe was on the other foot you would be screaming blue murder.

 

[dowdz]

Should have never gotten to a video ref if the officials picked up the forward pass in the build up. Square up I reckon. Also, anyone hear the ref call held on the Roosters line, when they dropped the ball and one of our players dived over the line?

 

[Jono]

However, what about the blatant knock on after the short kickoff? The Roosters knocked that ball on and it was overlooked. In addition, players were off side all game on both sides. The refereeing was horrible all game.

---

However, what about the blatant knock on after the short kickoff? The Roosters knocked that ball on and it was overlooked. In addition, players were off side all game on both sides. The refereeing was horrible all game.

---

However, what about the blatant knock on after the short kickoff? The Roosters knocked that ball on and it was overlooked. In addition, players were off side all game on both sides. The refereeing was horrible all game.

 

[globaleagle]

jono, what are you trying to say to say to say?

 

[Ian Martin tragic]

jono: I say everything thrice.

I think the roosters were dudded on that one, even if it was technically correct. If the refs had spotted it they should have blown the whistle and stopped the play right there.

But what about the decision to have the roosters play the ball after their player was being railroaded over their tryline and he loses it!

And when they restarted play incorrectly and were told to go back and do it again.

It was like a childcare centre out there. Mean while the players were trying to tear each other to shreds.

Maybe the refs had better change from that pink colour; seems to be getting to them a bit.

 

[eagles2win]

It should have been a try.

Here's another Friend kept tapping the ball a) off the mark or b) when he hadnt been given a mark - under the rules that constitutes a scrum.
All the comentators on fox picked it up

 

[Ralphie]

Braith was right and so is Harrigan, should have been a try. If the shoe was on the other foot you would be screaming blue murder.

If the shoe was on the other foot and let's say it was Matai with the raised arm the result would have been no try and a 3 week suspension.

 

[lismore_fan]

It happens plenty of times every match and nothing is done.

Anasta cries to the ref, "I've been playing a long time and this happens... welll... pause..pause... a million times!"

 

[Stevo]

I fail to see how the video ref got it wrong. The on field referee asked him to check for a raised elbow. He saw a raised elbow. I know this cause i saw a raised elbow. Is Harrigan arguing that there was no raised elbow or that it shouldn't have been refered?

 

[bones]

They should have awarded the try and just let the match review committee decide whether or not to take it further.