Matai No Try

[Brissie Kid]

omg! You can see Sutton's arm is above Matai's arm, not under Matai's arm holding him & the ball up. You can see the ball hit the ground just before the line & rotate onto the line. Try.

 

[castle eagle]

part of the blame for it being dis-allowed has to go to the touchie, he stayed infront of the try line when matai crashed over indicating(wrongly i might add) that he didn't think it was a try

 

[KOMORI]

I wouldn't be happy if they awarded that against Manly.

No doubt it was a try, but it couldn't be proven.

Actually no. I've watched the game now knowing the result and was able to be reasonably dispassionate regarding the "no try".

If the situation had been reversed, I'd still see it as a try. There's no doubt that the ball was grounded fractionally before the line, but also no doubt that it touched the line as he slid over.

The refs call made it impossible for the video ref to overturn it. That's the unfortunate truth.

Inglis having a lay down however... Biggest cat act ever. Soccer fans would be gushing in their panties all over the world after that dive.

Softcock. He's a huge cheat, yet listening to channel nein's commentary team batting off over him is just painful.

So mad right now.

 

[niccipops]

Tossers on nine were defending the no try saying there wasn't conclusive evidence to overturn it.
Brad Fittler the only one who thought differently.
They have to do something about this rule interpretation. It's changing the result of games when a ref makes an error.
There needs to be a third option as the almighty power to the ref with the try/no try decision and the wording of the 'conclusive evidence' is costing teams games.
How can you have conclusive evidence if vision is obscured?
I'm ranting this weekend😡
Need a stroll in the bush. Listen to some native birds twittering, then shoot the noisy f**kers! Kidding 😛

 

[Brissie Kid]

There needs to be a third option as the almighty power to the ref with the try/no try decision and the wording of the 'conclusive evidence' is costing teams games.
How can you have conclusive evidence if vision is obscured?

There is a rule for when the referees can't see the ball. It says they are not to rule "no try" just because they can't see the ball.

On balance of evidence & knowing rugby league a reasonable conclusion is that Matai scored a try. See my earlier post on page 4 of this thread.

For some reason the NRL doesn't follow its own rule. The onfield referee was also wrong to call "no try" using where Matai ended up as his reasoning. What he should have ruled on was what happened when Matai and the ball crossed the try line. That is 100% why this rule below exist but the NRL don't seem to want to use it.

2013 EDITION
RUGBY LEAGUE LAWS OF THE GAME
INTERNATIONAL LEVEL
WITH
NOTES ON THE LAWS
AND
NRL TELSTRA PREMIERSHIP INTERPRETATIONS
(APPROVED BY THE AUSTRALIAN RUGBY LEAGUE COMMISSION)

Referee unsighted
The Referee should not disallow a try because he was not in a position to see the grounding of the ball.
http://www.arlra.org.au/pdf-files/NRL_Rules_Book_2013_Web.pdf

 

[Shoe1]

Can't blame video refs, the fault is squarely with perenara. The video bloke had no choice really once perenara wimped the decision. He lagged it big time, no feel for the game. All he could do as a player was tackle, so no surprise really. Get rid of him. All the players knew it was a try. The souths guys weren't blowing up, they were subdued because they knew matai had a try.

 

[mickqld]

Tossers on nine were defending the no try saying there wasn't conclusive evidence to overturn it.
Brad Fittler the only one who thought differently.
They have to do something about this rule interpretation. It's changing the result of games when a ref makes an error.
There needs to be a third option as the almighty power to the ref with the try/no try decision and the wording of the 'conclusive evidence' is costing teams games.
How can you have conclusive evidence if vision is obscured?
I'm ranting this weekend😡
Need a stroll in the bush. Listen to some native birds twittering, then shoot the noisy f**kers! Kidding 😛

Of course the tossers on nein agreed with the decision. It was them that made the ****ing decision.

 

[WAMF]

I don't have an issue with the no try result coming back based on the system this year

I have a huge problem with the contact on Matais head going unpunished though, especially followed by the bull**** on Horo

That was nothing less than a stiff elbow to Matai's head.
I was amazed that nothing was mentioned in the commentary. Inglis the protected specie and ch9 love child.

 

[Snake&TurboTomofBrookie]

I'm not convinced it was a try the ball got tucked under his arm as it slid over very hard to ground it in that position, i'm sure he was easily over the line though.

I don't have an issue with the no try result coming back based on the system this year

I have a huge problem with the contact on Matais head going unpunished though, especially followed by the bull**** on Horo

No common sense tells you he was over the line common sense does not explain how the position of the ball in his arm was able to touch the ground.

TC, the vision from the back showed the ball on the ground at first contact, however I believe this was before the line. We know momentum got him over, and the ball does slightly lift due to Matai's arm and then the weight of everyone comes on top of him when we lose vision.

You and i don;t know what happens after that, whether the few more inches forward allowed matai to purposely on non purposely have his arm in a different angle allowing the edge of the ball to protrude more, who can know. The refs apparently saw a souths hand underneath the ball?

Common sense tells me no one saw where the ball ended up.

I'm not convinced it was a try the ball got tucked under his arm as it slid over very hard to ground it in that position, i'm sure he was easily over the line though.

You would have to be one of the larger penises trawling a discussion forum. Operating behind false sincerity and jumping over every Manly loss, one might actually consider that you are Dessie in disguise, except for the fact your technical input is comprised mostly of turd that you attempt to polish. Can't wait for the Raiders to punch holes through your team this weekend.

PS last year you were going to unveil your true identity to a few loyal subjects over a few ales.....did that end up happening?

omg! You can see Sutton's arm is above Matai's arm, not under Matai's arm holding him & the ball up. You can see the ball hit the ground just before the line & rotate onto the line. Try.

 

[Snake&TurboTomofBrookie]

I'm not convinced it was a try the ball got tucked under his arm as it slid over very hard to ground it in that position, i'm sure he was easily over the line though.

I don't have an issue with the no try result coming back based on the system this year

I have a huge problem with the contact on Matais head going unpunished though, especially followed by the bull**** on Horo

No common sense tells you he was over the line common sense does not explain how the position of the ball in his arm was able to touch the ground.

TC, the vision from the back showed the ball on the ground at first contact, however I believe this was before the line. We know momentum got him over, and the ball does slightly lift due to Matai's arm and then the weight of everyone comes on top of him when we lose vision.

You and i don;t know what happens after that, whether the few more inches forward allowed matai to purposely on non purposely have his arm in a different angle allowing the edge of the ball to protrude more, who can know. The refs apparently saw a souths hand underneath the ball?

Common sense tells me no one saw where the ball ended up.

I'm not convinced it was a try the ball got tucked under his arm as it slid over very hard to ground it in that position, i'm sure he was easily over the line though.

You would have to be one of the larger penises trawling a discussion forum. Operating behind false sincerity and jumping over every Manly loss, one might actually consider that you are Dessie in disguise, except for the fact your technical input is comprised mostly of turd that you attempt to polish. Can't wait for the Raiders to punch holes through your team this weekend.

PS last year you were going to unveil your true identity to a few loyal subjects over a few ales.....did that end up happening?

omg! You can see Sutton's arm is above Matai's arm, not under Matai's arm holding him & the ball up. You can see the ball hit the ground just before the line & rotate onto the line. Try.

Although I'm having mixed thoughts about this dis-allowed try- it's a try, it wasn't a try- on the replay, from a front on angle, as Matai was diving for the try line, he had a head knock from one of the Rabbitoh's players. Would this have played a part of whether he got the ball down?
How big or wide is the football? Which part of the body is the torso? They can also score a try if the torso grounds the ball. Just wondering.

 

[MadMarcus]

Sure, from that angle it looked like a try, but Perenara had a better view from 15m away and through a couple of players that says otherwise. Anderson is comfortable that the system is working...

 

[Rex]

These two postings by Berks and Brissie Kid, to any reasonable-minded person, definitively prove that Toovie was 100% correct in what he said about the try, and was rightfully outraged by its disallowance.

The video shows Perenara was unsighted because of the bodies of Matai and Sutton. He clearly couldn't say that the ball had not touched the ground. Therefore, according to the rules, he had to award the try. Blunder 1.

This video clip alone shows that the the try WAS scored and the video ref decision was in error. Look particularly at Matai's head and body position when he crosses the line. All of his weight was forcing downward over the ball, and the defenders were not in a position to stop it being forced. Blunder 2.

Anderson backed the actions of both the on-field officials and the off-field officials. Blunder 3 and blunder 4.

Todd claimed Tooveys criticisms were unjustified. Blunder 5.

It's a blunder-a-thon by the NRL officials. What happened to gracefully admitting you got it wrong when you get it wrong? That's what integrity demands.

People without integrity are identifiable by their attempts to manufacture spurious arguments to hide their errors.

Have they the guts to act with integrity?

Great posting BE

So where does it leave this note from the ARLC & NRL rules of the game on page 12 of their own NRL 2013 rules?


Referee unsighted
The Referee should not disallow a try because he was not in a position to see the grounding of the ball.
http://www.arlra.org.au/pdf-files/NRL_Rules_Book_2013_Web.pdf

Great posting BK

 

[globaleagle]

Wrap up that post @Rex and post it off to the nrl.

 

[niccipops]

Wrap up that post @Rex and post it off to the nrl.

Great post GE😛

 

[Stevo]

He didn't disallow the try @Rex

He sent it upstairs with his opinion it was a no try. The video referee disallowed the try.

The stupidity of the rule is that the referee has to give an opinion of an incident he didn't see.

 

[globaleagle]

Wrap up that post @Rex and post it off to the nrl.

Great post GE😛

Oh go fly a glider possum!

*whilst standing on a fence post.


(how did i miss this 12 hours ago?)