Round 24 - Knights vs Broncos - Post Match Discussion

[noisetheory]

i dont think the attacking team should get the benefit of the doubt

^ this alone. i dont think it should of been a try last night. the benefit should go with the defensive team imo.

 

[mrslong]

Ha! Also has come since he got that pretty huge scare with his eye. I'd say that has more to do with it. Stopped him taking his footy for granted.

Actually It's cos he was told by his coach he had to play better to keep his spot in the team.

 

[Porthoz]

yeh i realise that, but from the 20+ replays i watched of it there was no doubt that he touched it while it was on the line. he didnt ever have control of it, not even remotely, but he touched it.

but like i said, i cant hold that decision against them as it was a very tough one.

also, im not 100% sure on the benefit of the doubt rule, but at the stage where they were questioning if gidley had touched it on the line or not, there was no Bronco touching it or anything - so im not sure if the benefit of the doubt rule applies. i would assume the benefit of the doubt only goes to the attacking team when the person is potentially scoring a try and theres doubt over if the ball gets grounded etc? i dont think the attacking team should get the benefit of the doubt for a defender grounding the ball when theres no attacker involved, and im not sure if the NRL agrees or not. anyone know?

Benefit of the doubt only goes to the attacking team. I think Gidley probably did ground the ball in goal before Wallace and Parker touched it, but can't be sure, which is why we got the try. Good decision imo.

 

[Dexter]

^ this alone. i dont think it should of been a try last night. the benefit should go with the defensive team imo.

Thats just it though I don't think it was even a doubt. Gidley at no time grounded the ball. He tried to roll it back, lost control of it before the line then knocked it on, no way did he ground it.

Ap the grounding rule changed from previous years where all you had to do was scrape the ball in any direction to call it grounded.

 

[mrslong]

^ this alone. i dont think it should of been a try last night. the benefit should go with the defensive team imo.

That will just create the same problems in reverse. Imagine a lazy defender coming across late, sort of tries to lift the attacking player out of the try line, the camera angles are obscured. Benefit of the doubt shouldn't go to the lazy defender. Benefit of the doubt rule is just plain stupid. It either is a try or it isn't.

 

[Charmamba]

I find it stupid you only need 1 finger to do anything in league, Defending or attacking. If Gidlol can't control the ball to save a try tough ****ing luck, Knock on play advantage try to Wallace.

 

[Coxy]

^ this alone. i dont think it should of been a try last night. the benefit should go with the defensive team imo.

Yep. When they brought it in, they used Cricket as the analogy - ie, that Batsmen get the benefit of the doubt.

Thing is, in cricket the "Defensive" team is actually the batting team - as it's their job to "defend" their wicket. While the bowling/fielding team is "Attacking" the wicket.

So we've got our rule arse about if we're really using cricket as the guide.

 

[Coxy]

I find it stupid you only need 1 finger to do anything in league, Defending or attacking. If Gidlol can't control the ball to save a try tough ****ing luck, Knock on play advantage try to Wallace.

It's the fundamental difference between having possession or the ball being loose. Different requirements.

 

[Mister Wright]

In cricket the benefit of the doubt goes with the team that has more to lose. The batsman cannot make up for a bad decision, at least the bowling team can keep bowling to the batsmam/men. Should be the same in football. The defensive team has more to lose so should therefore get benefit of the doubt.

 

[Big Pete]

Laurie Daley kept saying "clearly Gidley has knocked it on, it's no try" WTF DALEY?
If you knock the ball on the other team can pick it up and play on. It's called the Zero tackle. What a moron.

Also, I hate hate hate Brandy commentating the Broncos. He really hates them.

Not the sharpest tool in the shed is he Daley? I don't think he said it in that context, he was just saying if it was to be a No Try, it should be a scrum 10m out to the Broncos. The silly thing is though it could have only been a goal line drop out or a try since neither Broncos player knocked on in attempting to ground it. He was of the opinion we scored though hence Smith creditted him and Alexander when it was awarded.

Definitely a tough decision and a good water cooler convo. In my rule book it wouldn't have been a try, I would have given Kidley the BotD and ordered a goal line drop out but with the current interpretations I'm fine with the decision. A tough one to swallow and I'd feel dirty if it was awarded against us but it's certainly understandable.

On McGuire I think he started the season quite strongly too. He was the only forward going forward against the Cowboys and I remember him having a strong game against the Raiders. You could be onto something Coxy about his eye injury being a big motivator for him taking his game to the next level but all up I think he's improved well on his 2010 efforts.

 

[Coxy]

Oh big time. He was disappointing last year after a promising 09.

Great to see him lift