Video Refs 2009 - same old? : Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:57 am  

Apparently so. When a player clearly and indisputably loses control of the ball (Gardner) it's a knock-on, but what do we get? Try.

We may as well give up on it now, we employ people who simply can't see straight.

: Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:58 am  

A try was the correct decision in that case.

: Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:59 am  

who was the vr?

: Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:00 am  

Wes Hooligan wrote:

A try was the correct decision in that case.

A try was the wrong decision in that case.

: Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:01 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

A try was the wrong decision in that case.

How so when he clearly grounded the ball on the line?

: Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:02 am  

Wes Hooligan wrote:

How so when he clearly grounded the ball on the line?

Because it makes no difference, before he grounded it, he'd lost control and dropped it. He only grounded it after the ball had hit the deck.

: Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:07 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Because it makes no difference, before he grounded it, he'd lost control and dropped it. He only grounded it after the ball had hit the deck.

Give over, it would have been outrageous if that try had been disallowed.

: Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:11 am  

Wes Hooligan wrote:

Give over, it would have been outrageous if that try had been disallowed.

You don't have an argument. You just say "it would", but not "why". It would not have been outrageous, because he had dropped the ball. If you can't explain why you think him dropping the ball should be ignored, as it was, then there's no point in continuing the discussion with you. Similarly if you, like the VR, have such bad observation that you missed him dropping the ball.

: Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:13 am  

I thought it was 50/50 - would have been harsh to not give it as there was no clear cut evidence he didn't ground it first, but on a couple of replays he did appear to lose control before touching it down.

: Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:14 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

:lol:
You don't have an argument. You just say "it would", but not "why". It would not have been outrageous, because he had dropped the ball. If you can't explain why you think him dropping the ball should be ignored, as it was, then there's no point in continuing the discussion with you. Similarly if you, like the VR, have such bad observation that you missed him dropping the ball.

I haven't seen it on the TV yet but if he has made contact with the ball before it has hit the ground in the act of putting downward force on it for the try then it is not a knock on surely?

As I said I haven't seen it yet so can't really comment on it specifically. What happened all together, and don't say he knocked it on.