Video referee
- Thread starter Coxy
- Start date
- Feb 27, 2010
- 30,279
- 12,491
How do you explain Friday's decision on Macca's try?
- Thread starter
- #3
I dunno. Video ref must've seen something the rest of us didn't :P
OXY-351
NRL Player
- Oct 1, 2008
- 2,185
- 923
That one confused me too. I don't think any of the replays showed conclusivly that he either did or didn't score, so the refs original decision should have stuck
- Thread starter
- #5
Agreed. Radio commentators were making the assumption that the video ref ruled he was short.
Anonymous person
Banned User
- Dec 16, 2008
- 4,635
- 932
are you guys serious?
the mccullough no try was clearly the right decision - when he planted it there was ball, a clear strip of green grass, then the white line. i wanted it to be a try as much as the next diehard broncos fan, but one look at that was enough for me to go "damn".
i like the process much more as well, but we havent really had any really tough ones yet.
the mccullough no try was clearly the right decision - when he planted it there was ball, a clear strip of green grass, then the white line. i wanted it to be a try as much as the next diehard broncos fan, but one look at that was enough for me to go "damn".
i like the process much more as well, but we havent really had any really tough ones yet.
Kaz
State of Origin Captain
- Mar 5, 2008
- 10,101
- 3,863
OXY-351
NRL Player
- Oct 1, 2008
- 2,185
- 923
Maybe I missed seeing the best replay of it, and while my initial thought upon seeing one of the replays was he was short, I didn't think any of the other replays showed he definitely didn't score. Opinion in here seems to be divided too so far, and while everyone obviously thinks their view is correct, I think it points to it not being conclusive. I would have been happy with the ref ruling it a no try from the start, as he should have had the best view of it, but I wonder what the ref saw for him to award it a try.
I don't mind the new system, but I just hope the refs actually make the calls as they beleive it to be. I swear in some matches on the weekend, the ref just said no try to be cautious, and let the video ref then rule on it knowing they'd probably get over ruled anyway.
- Thread starter
- #11
This is certainly the case with obstruction calls. There was one in the Storm game - the Slater try - where Luke Phillips ruled no try and sent it upstairs. The obstruction was pretty clearly not the fault of the attacking team so the try was awarded.
The new obstruction interpretations are taking some getting used to. The whole "did the attacker initiate contact" etc.
Big Pete
International Captain
- Mar 12, 2008
- 32,240
- 26,068
I didn't think the one look or angle we got was conclusive enough to over-turn the McCullough decision. The video ref has to be completely sure and there wasn't conclusive footage of the ball not touching the white line. This was one of those line ball decisions that really comes down to the on-field referee's decision and the on-field ref. who had the best angle of all to see whether or not it was a try ruled accordingly.
It wasn't an absolute howler by any means but for mine I didn't think the video referee respected the original decision enough. The footage wasn't damning. Also, I think in an instance like that, where the only reason he didn't score was because the defender was a mile off-side, it should have been a penalty try but that's for another thread.
The worse call was the Plum try against Raiders. It didn't make any real difference fortunately, but the on-field referee clearly denied the try because he saw the push on Berrigan. I don't care how hard Berrigan was chasing, it's irrelevant, under no circumstances can a player interfere with another in the pursuit of the ball and to over-turn it when the footage supported the on-field referee was plain wrong.
It wasn't an absolute howler by any means but for mine I didn't think the video referee respected the original decision enough. The footage wasn't damning. Also, I think in an instance like that, where the only reason he didn't score was because the defender was a mile off-side, it should have been a penalty try but that's for another thread.
The worse call was the Plum try against Raiders. It didn't make any real difference fortunately, but the on-field referee clearly denied the try because he saw the push on Berrigan. I don't care how hard Berrigan was chasing, it's irrelevant, under no circumstances can a player interfere with another in the pursuit of the ball and to over-turn it when the footage supported the on-field referee was plain wrong.
Anonymous person
Banned User
- Dec 16, 2008
- 4,635
- 932
Anonymous person
Banned User
- Dec 16, 2008
- 4,635
- 932
if grass in between the ball and the line isnt conclusive then i dont know what is, but sure. agree to disagree.
- Thread starter
- #17
If that's the best image then I agree, it's inconclusive. The angle is poor - almost at ground level. No perspective on how thick the line is etc. Would've thought with "spider cam" they could've got an overhead view of all try scoring situations....but then, it's channel 9. They're fucking useless.
