: Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:09 pm  

Jukesays wrote:

No!

He didn't give them is FACT

Should he have given them is an Opinion!
It may be hard for you to take in due to Never having been Wrong before but I live in hope that somewhere along the line it will!

Seriously, are you on medication or something? or is this a wind up.

Do you know the rules of the game? I suggest you read them. Because if you knew them you would see that the dissallowed tries were entirely correct decisions, FACT.

It is an opinion if there is some debate as to whether the rule was broken at all. There is not debate here, unless the person debating is clueless.

I will give you that the Kirke pass on first seeing could be open to debate and an opinion. But you only have to watch the match on telly afterwards to see that he clearly passes the ball in a backwards motion and the ball its the ground and bounces forward. In the eyes of the ref no rule was broken and therefore not dissallowed. And no doubt had he gone to the VR same decision.

But I will give you that any 50/50 call is opinion. Shame you can not see that the other two calls were 100% correct, nothing near to 50/50.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:15 pm  

Jeez,
refs have bad games all the time. Let's move on from Friday - the ref didn't lose us the game, our poor defence and lack of respect for the ball did (what was Ainscough doing when he tried to kick that ball away?). Those 40/20s were good kicks and if Trent had done them while he was here we'd be calling him God. In my opinion, our disallowed tries were correctly denied - it's time to move on...

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:16 pm  

DISA wrote:

Seriously, are you on medication or something? or is this a wind up.

Do you know the rules of the game? I suggest you read them. Because if you knew them you would see that the dissallowed tries were entirely correct decisions, FACT.

It is an opinion if there is some debate as to whether the rule was broken at all. There is not debate here, unless the person debating is clueless.

I will give you that the Kirke pass on first seeing could be open to debate and an opinion. But you only have to watch the match on telly afterwards to see that he clearly passes the ball in a backwards motion and the ball its the ground and bounces forward. In the eyes of the ref no rule was broken and therefore not dissallowed. And no doubt had he gone to the VR same decision.

.

But I will give you that any 50/50 call is opinion. Shame you can not see that the other two calls were 100% correct, nothing near to 50/50.

Kirke releases the ball before the 20 metre line. It hits the ground after the 20 metre line, therefore it's a knock on as soon as it hits the ground, it doesn't matter which way it bounces after that

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:20 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

Kirke releases the ball before the 20 metre line. It hits the ground after the 20 metre line, therefore it's a knock on as soon as it hits the ground, it doesn't matter which way it bounces after that

Not that I agree with you on the lines, because I dont. But what matters is does Kirke pass the ball in a backwards motion. The answer is Yes.

Where does Kirke end up in relation to the ball?

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:21 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

Kirke releases the ball before the 20 metre line. It hits the ground after the 20 metre line, therefore it's a knock on as soon as it hits the ground, it doesn't matter which way it bounces after that

And by the way.

Take a good look at Ainscoughs try. Look where the pass is made from and where he collects the ball in his hands.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:24 pm  

DISA wrote:

Seriously, are you on medication or something? or is this a wind up.

No, Just an attempt to calmly express an OPINION about something that others think incorrectly is a FACT!

Do you know the rules of the game? I suggest you read them. Because if you knew them you would see that the dissallowed tries were entirely correct decisions, FACT.

Incorrect! But I think we best agree to disagree, that is what OPINIONS are all about!

It is an opinion if there is some debate as to whether the rule was broken at all. There is not debate here, unless the person debating is clueless.

You Mean Clueless in that he has a different OPINION to Yourself!

I will give you that the Kirke pass on first seeing could be open to debate and an opinion. But you only have to watch the match on telly afterwards to see that he clearly passes the ball in a backwards motion and the ball its the ground and bounces forward. In the eyes of the ref no rule was broken and therefore not dissallowed. And no doubt had he gone to the VR same decision.

In Your Opinion, Yet in the Opinion of others who like yourself have watched the game on TV afterwards the Ball came out of his hands before/on the 20 metre line and landed 1-2 mtrs in front (I agree that Donald Didn't touch it) of the 20mtr line deems this as forward/Knock on!

But I will give you that any 50/50 call is opinion. Shame you can not see that the other two calls were 100% correct, nothing near to 50/50.

I Didn't say they were 50/50, I said I agreed with the Ainscough one & I Disagreed with the Hock one!
IN MY OPINION! Not Fact, Just Opinion!

PS

I Thought that Peacock's was 50/50, It was given, we get on with it!

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:25 pm  

DISA wrote:

Not that I agree with you on the lines, because I dont. But what matters is does Kirke pass the ball in a backwards motion. The answer is Yes.

Where does Kirke end up in relation to the ball?

Flat on his face behind where the ball lands?????

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:53 pm  

Jukesays wrote:

I Didn't say they were 50/50, I said I agreed with the Ainscough one & I Disagreed with the Hock one!
IN MY OPINION! Not Fact, Just Opinion!

PS

I Thought that Peacock's was 50/50, It was given, we get on with it!

I thought that Peacocks was 50/50 at the time too. But does not the rules state that if you can not categorically see that a try was notscored legitamittly, that you give benefit of doubt? Therefore try rightfully awarded.

You are still wrong on the Hock one, and you cant admit it. It is not opinion that the ref was correct or wrong, it is FACT. Read the rules and you will see that it was correct, which makes it FACT.

Yes, you dissagreeign is opiniion, but that does not change the fact that the try was rightfully dissallowed.

And watch the Ainscough try again.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 2:15 pm  

DISA wrote:

I thought that Peacocks was 50/50 at the time too. But does not the rules state that if you can not categorically see that a try was notscored legitamittly, that you give benefit of doubt? Therefore try rightfully awarded.

Not Sure??? I havent read the Rule book but my understanding is that if the VR "Thinks" that in all probability a Try has been scored but the Video does not prove this then he give BOTD.
If He can't see on the Video though and He Doesn't "Think" a try has been scored he can Disallow it, He doesnt have to give it!
So my understanding of the rule is different to yours but either way I would have give Peacocks.

You are still wrong on the Hock one, and you cant admit it. It is not opinion that the ref was correct or wrong, it is FACT. Read the rules and you will see that it was correct, which makes it FACT.

So No other try as ever been given by the Video Ref were the "Underside" defender came into contact with a Dummy Runner?
I have seen numerous tries given in similar circumstances where the Defender makes no attempt to tackle the attacker but simply chooses the wrong man and makes the Lazy decision as to which runner to tackle.
If we had a rule where every time an attacking dummy runner came into contact with a defender the try was disallowed we wouldn't see half the tries we do now & Saints May never score another try again!
HOWEVER
I Still stand by my statement that I believe it should have been given as a try as any circumstance similar to this would be ajudicated on by the VR and His interpretation of the rule! Otherwise as I said earlier the only way he could decide what to give would be from a Rule Book And EVERY TRY would be disallowed where a dummy runner came into contact with a defender.


Yes, you dissagreeign is opiniion, but that does not change the fact that the try was rightfully dissallowed.

Dissagreeign????
The only FACT is that he disallowed it. Wheter he should is an Opinion!
Are you Rafa Benitez BTW Dealing in so many Facts!

And watch the Ainscough try again.

Which one???
The one were he was in front of the kicker and it was disallowed??? If So I agree, What more do you want???

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 2:31 pm  

Jukesays wrote:

Which one???
The one were he was in front of the kicker and it was disallowed??? If So I agree, What more do you want???

No the one given.

You are correct that try's are given that involve some obstruction, and right to query that.

But you are wrong on the context of the one on Friday. The defender did not pick out the wrong man and tackle him. He was prevented quite clearly from making the tackle on the correct attacker because O'Loughlin was stood still in the way. That is an obstruction. Read the rules (which you admit you have not looked at recently) and you will see that if O'Loughlin had have kept on moving through the line, that try would not have been dissallowed. But because he stopped and impeded the defender from effecting a tackle, he was breaking the rules. Therfore in relation to the rules we are back to Fact again.

I have not seen any potential obstruction try awarded that is as clear as that one on Friday.