That NO-Try on youtube
- Thread starter Berkeley_Eagle
- Start date
-
We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.
Canteen Worker
First Grader
The various radio and TV shows today all showed this incident as a total howler. To be incompetent is one thing but to justify it as acceptable is even worse.
this whole debacle stems from the fact that in the actual run of play the referees have come to regard any dropped ball as a knock on.onfield refs simply blow the whistle if a player drops it any direction other than straight backwards .it has been driving me mad for f...ing years.and now it has mutated into a fool transferring that logic to the video ref box when he has to decide on a replayed vision.in other words,we always call it a knock on so it must be one even if it goes back on video.this logic becomes further mutated when commentators say they would have been happy to see it called a knock on by the onfield ref but the video ref should call it a knock back .this even crazier logic is then made crazier by the fact that every second pass from dummy half at the advantage line is actually forward but is let go on numerous occasions because it too has become accepted practice.
there are so many black and white rules that have been turned to grey by these fools that the officiating is becoming a total joke. look at the deaf leopard rule.we all knew what a shepherd once was.simple.now it is a total mess.
there are so many black and white rules that have been turned to grey by these fools that the officiating is becoming a total joke. look at the deaf leopard rule.we all knew what a shepherd once was.simple.now it is a total mess.
How is Lyon's fumbling of the ball any different to passing the ball backwards to one of your team mates and it isn't caught? Does that now mean that every time a ball is passed backward and is not caught is now a knock on in the video ref's (or at least Simpkin's) eyes? I think that we should all go out and buy Simpkins a copy of the rule book as he obviously doesn't know the rules and should be retested for competency before he is allowed to go out on the field or sit in the video ref box again to make rulings.
MadMarcus
Toovey for NRL CEO
I agree with you susan. Lots of dropped balls that go backwards are ruled to be knock ons in general play and everyone seems to accept it.
And think about this for a minute - If Oldfield had have caught Lyon's fumble it would have been a pass and then the video ref wouldn't have been able to rule on it. Even if he could - could you imagine him claiming it was a forward pass???
Another illustration of the stupidity of the system.
And think about this for a minute - If Oldfield had have caught Lyon's fumble it would have been a pass and then the video ref wouldn't have been able to rule on it. Even if he could - could you imagine him claiming it was a forward pass???
Another illustration of the stupidity of the system.
Matabele
Journey Man
As it happened I was howling at the TV for Oldfield to submit to a tackle 1m out so we could go over next play and escape the review. We always get dudded with extended video ref reviews and I texted to Dan it would be no try as soon as I saw the first (of several) playings.MadMarcus said:
Berkeley_Eagle
Current Status: 24/7 Manly Fan
Official View: Video referee dropped
http://www.nrl.com/official-view-video-referee-dropped/tabid/10874/newsid/62563/default.aspx
Referees co-coach Bill Harrigan answers your most frequently asked questions from Round 8.
Why was Manly’s Jamie Lyon ruled to have knocked-on by the video referee?
In relation to the match between Manly and North Queensland and the video referee decision against Jamie Lyon, we reviewed it today and it is unanimous that it was a knock back.
It is always going back from the hands, the 40-metre line is there and can be used as a good guide, it is always going backwards out of his hands, it crosses the red line and continues to go backwards.
As a result, the video referee has been stood down from Round 9.
That should have been play-on, the video referee has made a crucial decision in that game at a crucial time and it certainly had an impact on the game.
This is why we have felt it necessary to stand the video referee down for Round 9.
Was there a possible eight-point try when Manly’s Will Hopoate was attempting to score?
If Will Hopoate had the ball in his possession, then it would have definitely been an eight-point try.
But because he didn’t have the ball, it was a loose ball situation, the defender was running in and going for the ball, not the attacker.
They were both going for the ball and that is the difference in this situation, rather than one player having the ball and the other coming in late attacking the player with the ball.
It was a 50-50 contest for the ball and that is why it was not an eight-point try.
Why was Josh Dugan awarded a try when it looked like he had knocked-on?
The video referees had their meeting today and it was unanimous that it should have been called a knock-on.
The ball has been lost in the act of scoring.
The video referee ruled that it was stripped so therefore ball was still live and then subsequently grounded.
But having watched the replays and analysed them today, we are confident the ball was lost in the act of scoring and should not have been awarded.
Why was the decision to award a try to the Broncos not sent upstairs when it appeared Peter Wallace might have knocked-on in the lead up?
I want to applaud the referee and the pocket referee on not sending that up to the video referee. We have told the referees not to send the decision upstairs if you know what the decision coming back is going to be.
In this situation the pocket referee was yelling ‘backwards, backwards’ and that confirmed what the control referee thought had happened and he knew that it was a try.
We have looked at it again and again, it was unanimous that while Peter Wallace was trying to pass, the ball always travels backwards from his hands and thus it is play-on leading to a Broncos try.
Some people have been critical that it wasn’t checked, even though it was a try. Our attitude is that if you are in the right position and you are 100% confident in what you have seen, why check it?
http://www.nrl.com/official-view-video-referee-dropped/tabid/10874/newsid/62563/default.aspx
Referees co-coach Bill Harrigan answers your most frequently asked questions from Round 8.
Why was Manly’s Jamie Lyon ruled to have knocked-on by the video referee?
In relation to the match between Manly and North Queensland and the video referee decision against Jamie Lyon, we reviewed it today and it is unanimous that it was a knock back.
It is always going back from the hands, the 40-metre line is there and can be used as a good guide, it is always going backwards out of his hands, it crosses the red line and continues to go backwards.
As a result, the video referee has been stood down from Round 9.
That should have been play-on, the video referee has made a crucial decision in that game at a crucial time and it certainly had an impact on the game.
This is why we have felt it necessary to stand the video referee down for Round 9.
Was there a possible eight-point try when Manly’s Will Hopoate was attempting to score?
If Will Hopoate had the ball in his possession, then it would have definitely been an eight-point try.
But because he didn’t have the ball, it was a loose ball situation, the defender was running in and going for the ball, not the attacker.
They were both going for the ball and that is the difference in this situation, rather than one player having the ball and the other coming in late attacking the player with the ball.
It was a 50-50 contest for the ball and that is why it was not an eight-point try.
Why was Josh Dugan awarded a try when it looked like he had knocked-on?
The video referees had their meeting today and it was unanimous that it should have been called a knock-on.
The ball has been lost in the act of scoring.
The video referee ruled that it was stripped so therefore ball was still live and then subsequently grounded.
But having watched the replays and analysed them today, we are confident the ball was lost in the act of scoring and should not have been awarded.
Why was the decision to award a try to the Broncos not sent upstairs when it appeared Peter Wallace might have knocked-on in the lead up?
I want to applaud the referee and the pocket referee on not sending that up to the video referee. We have told the referees not to send the decision upstairs if you know what the decision coming back is going to be.
In this situation the pocket referee was yelling ‘backwards, backwards’ and that confirmed what the control referee thought had happened and he knew that it was a try.
We have looked at it again and again, it was unanimous that while Peter Wallace was trying to pass, the ball always travels backwards from his hands and thus it is play-on leading to a Broncos try.
Some people have been critical that it wasn’t checked, even though it was a try. Our attitude is that if you are in the right position and you are 100% confident in what you have seen, why check it?
They should do more than just stand him down. The should give a copy of the rule book and have him resit the referee's exam before he is allowed to officiate another game and that goes for all the others that screw up too. It would make them realise that if they screw up that there are consequences and punishments. Maybe then they will get their act together.
| Team | P | W | L | PD | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
6 | 5 | 1 | 20 | 12 |
|
6 | 4 | 2 | 53 | 10 |
|
5 | 4 | 1 | 23 | 10 |
|
6 | 4 | 2 | 48 | 8 |
|
6 | 4 | 2 | 28 | 8 |
|
5 | 3 | 2 | 14 | 8 |
|
7 | 4 | 3 | -18 | 8 |
|
6 | 3 | 2 | 21 | 7 |
|
7 | 3 | 3 | 20 | 7 |
|
7 | 3 | 4 | 31 | 6 |
|
6 | 3 | 3 | 16 | 6 |
|
5 | 2 | 3 | -15 | 6 |
|
7 | 3 | 4 | -41 | 6 |
|
6 | 2 | 4 | -5 | 4 |
|
6 | 2 | 4 | -7 | 4 |
|
6 | 1 | 5 | -102 | 4 |
|
5 | 0 | 5 | -86 | 2 |
