Re: Bulls v Wire CC : Mon May 31, 2010 8:47 pm  

Who are ya!! wrote:

That's because the ball clearly did get touched and moved in a different direction once touched.

That is what many non-Bulls said about a similar incident in a GF against Saints a few years ago, when the vidref deemed Mick Withers to have touched a ball in flight. Even though, like this time, I never saw any contact and I never saw any deviation in flight.

And Mick swore to me (and some others) that he never touched the ball. No doubt Beaver will say the same.

Re: Bulls v Wire CC : Mon May 31, 2010 10:16 pm  

He can say all he likes, you saw the flight of the ball change, he was running forward, the ball ended up on a part of grass a different colour about 2 yards forward, NO WAY it should have been a try.
having said that it was certainly evened out throughout the game.

i bloody hate that wembley song, in fact our fans are turning into fans like saints etc and since geordie relinquished the drums the songs are all repetitive crud, its boring

Re: Bulls v Wire CC : Tue Jun 01, 2010 9:29 am  

Dico wrote:

He can say all he likes, you saw the flight of the ball change, he was running forward, the ball ended up on a part of grass a different colour about 2 yards forward, NO WAY it should have been a try.
having said that it was certainly evened out throughout the game.

..

You should try watching without having already decided your decision. The pass was a legal pass - i.e. it was going backwards.

IF there was any deviation in the flight of the ball, it was in a downward direction. Hard to tell if it was Menzies' hand or just the ball twisting, but the point is, whatever else happened, he didn't change the lateral direction of the ball. If it was travelling legally before, it was still on the same lateral line after.

All the grass looked green to me btw, and as for "two yards" - sorry but making such bizarre claims do nothing for your argument.

Re: Bulls v Wire CC : Tue Jun 01, 2010 9:57 am  

I think you should have gone to specsavers, that or buy a better tv.
The grass is cut into two shades, almost every pitch is. Unless you're groundsman likes a bit of the old vodka before going to work these cuts should be relatively straight. Menzies touched the ball in one shade, Sheriffe picked it up well into the alternate shade. You can talk about lateral directions all you like when Menzies touched it the grass was a completely different cut of the pitch as to when Sheriffe picked it up, how on earth did no one else notice that.
Worst Video ref decision this year

Re: Bulls v Wire CC : Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:17 am  

Dico wrote:

I think you should have gone to specsavers,

Hey, that's an original jibe. I've never heard that one before. Did you make it up? It is amazing that nobody has come up with it until now. Wow. I am impressed. "Should have gone to Specsavers" - clever. Please can you offer us some advice on how you manage to write this outstanding original material. And another thing - I reckon you could have got some sort of award for that sort of comedy genius. So thank you for instead deciding to share the brilliance of your creative juices with with us mere forum mortals. Are you related to Oscar Wilde, perhaps?

Dico wrote:

... how on earth did no one else notice that.
...

... er, it didn't happen?

Re: Bulls v Wire CC : Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:20 am  

I'm cleverer.
More in the Einstein bracket if you will, preferring to sit and think about the world around me.
However, the point still stands.

Re: Bulls v Wire CC : Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:21 am  

Dico wrote:

Worst Video ref decision this year

As a neutral, I thought the ball was touched and knocked forward, but it was a marginal decision. There is no way that was the worst video referee call of the year, or even the month.

Re: Bulls v Wire CC : Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:24 am  

Gansons previous effort in the Salford Saints game was a good one but this was a belter made close by the fact it was fairly tricky to judge.. until you looked at the pitch.
I sometimes think referees are overthinking, over analysing situations when if you sit back and look at the plain laws of physics, the answer is blatantly obvious. It's the same with some of these 'stripped'/knock ons, common sense should prevail an awful lot more than it does.

Re: Bulls v Wire CC : Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:50 am  

Recent evidence suggests:
Ganson likes to say TRY
Alibert likes to say NO TRY
other referees I am not so sureabout

i think it was forward off the hand, it reminded me of another disallowed try at Odsal and i think bradford were lucky that Ganson was in the box as other refs would have pressed the other button

Re: Bulls v Wire CC : Tue Jun 01, 2010 1:54 pm  

Dico wrote:

I'm cleverer.
More in the Einstein bracket if you will, preferring to sit and think about the world around me.
However, the point still stands.

OT I know but that brought to mind a piece of graffiti from my favourite dub at my old Uni:

Some come here to sit and think
But I just come to sh.it and stink