AUBUSSON WAS OFF SIDE - KENT WRONG!

[Simonmyers11]

Looks like the correct call was made.


There is an article on fox today about how they could use technology in this case by drawing a line, they reckon aubuson was onside, but the dopes drew the line in blue not parallel to the line.


So I thought id redo it for them, you can see my white lines are parallel, and can see aubuson is off side!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[maxta]

Think that in the rules Tupou would be classified offside also...but not 100%
They rave on AGAIN about a no try call with Manly involved, yet the Cowgirls game had 2 tries disallowed that were more contentious, that have been pushed to the back of the que in a GF rematch!!

 

[EagleRock40]

Think that in the rules Tupou would be classified offside also...but not 100%
They rave on AGAIN about a no try call with Manly involved, yet the Cowgirls game had 2 tries disallowed that were more contentious, that have been pushed to the back of the que in a GF rematch!!

This was exactly why I thought it was no try. Looking at it I honestly think Aubusson was onside, but Tupou is well offside (and in this case cant be run onside by the kicker because we didn't play at the ball) and ended up getting involved by scoring the try.

 

[jbb/james]

Until that tech is available live then we have to suck it up.was kent hoping to go to the bunker and get a reply 2 days later. Maybe longer over the easter break.

Wow wouldnt that hurt manlys turn around.

Kent has a brain, at times long long ago his journalism was pretty good.then he turned into a self serving opinion writer that would be more at home doing womans weekly pieces.

He reminds me of the really talented footy player that got lazy , comfortable just holding his own amongst a pretty ordinary crop. You know the player, he bags them relentlessly for not reaching there potential.

 

[bones]

Was a try IMO. You have the line drawn too far back. Draw it from where the ball is, not from Tupou's back foot.

 

[Loobs]

I'll draw a line in this argument and say who gives a toss - we won - bank the points and move along people.

 

[MissKate]

I was pretty much in line with this at the game and called it straight away, so regardless of what all the 'experts' say I stick with what I saw. Can someone also find out how much time & money someone wasted fudging the blue line to try and prove their incorrect assessment was urrr still wrong. You have to laugh else you would cry

 

[midsteyne]

Who cares,we won

 

[nightster]

for future reference Loobs ... and yes we beat the cocks Yay

 

[Volley]

Tupou was offside, not sure why all the experts keep harping on about Aubusson. Tupou was offside and kept running until he was in a position to catch the last pass. Offside everyday of the week.

 

[HappilyManly]

This is incredible misdirection.

Archer explained the ruling for offside is based on Aubusson proximity to Killer who the Ref deemed had not played at the ball.
So Mitchell could not run him onside.

Abusson is not back 10 meters from Killer. The Mitchell kick position has sweet FA to do with the ruling.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2016/03/28/roosters-werent-robbed-nrl-refs-boss/

Referee Grant Atkins sent the decision to the bunker after gesturing no try.

It upheld Atkins’ ruling, much to the annoyance of Roosters coach Trent Robinson.

The Sea Eagles went on the win the clash 22-20.

Archer told AAP it was the correct decision.

“The bunker viewed all the available angles and there was insufficient evidence to overturn the decision,” he said.

“For Mitchell Aubusson to be onside, both of his feet needed to be behind the ball.”

Archer said Aubusson was not put onside by the rebound off Lyon because the Manly skipper did not play at the ball.

He said Mitchell was not able to put Aubusson onside by chasing the ball through because the Steeden did not travel 10m and therefore the Roosters utility needed to retreat behind the position where the ball was kicked before he could join the play.

 

[Simonmyers11]

Was a try IMO. You have the line drawn too far back. Draw it from where the ball is, not from Tupou's back foot.

I just started the line where they started the blue line. Blue line wasn't even parallel with the white line markers on the field. i just copied one of those up and placed it at the start of the blue line.

Doesn't matter, we won! Might of got a lucky call, but you need some luck every now and then. We didn't have that much else go our way in that game

 

[manlywarringah]

I'd like to see the first kick and see if he was onside. No one has shown that.

 

[tookey]

I am just sorry that it wasn't the 2016 grand final that we beat the roosters on saturday with a controversial no try ruling as it would be payback for 2013

 

[castle eagle]

Remember the daily tele motto:
Never let the truth get in the way of a story

 

[Volley]

This is incredible misdirection.

Archer explained the ruling for offside is based on Aubusson proximity to Killer who the Ref deemed had not played at the ball.
So Mitchell could not run him onside.

Abusson is not back 10 meters from Killer. The Mitchell kick position has sweet FA to do with the ruling.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2016/03/28/roosters-werent-robbed-nrl-refs-boss/

Aubusson's position in relation to Lyon is irrelevant. If Aubusson is behind Mitchell when Mitchell kicks it, then Aubusson is onside and free to catch the ball. Archer is saying that Aubusson is in front of Mitchell, and therefore offside. I think he's in line with Mitchell, and onside, however Tupou is always offside and the correct decision was reached, not in the correct manner though.

 

[Volley]

This is incredible misdirection.

Archer explained the ruling for offside is based on Aubusson proximity to Killer who the Ref deemed had not played at the ball.
So Mitchell could not run him onside.

Abusson is not back 10 meters from Killer. The Mitchell kick position has sweet FA to do with the ruling.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2016/03/28/roosters-werent-robbed-nrl-refs-boss/

Referee Grant Atkins sent the decision to the bunker after gesturing no try.

It upheld Atkins’ ruling, much to the annoyance of Roosters coach Trent Robinson.

The Sea Eagles went on the win the clash 22-20.

Archer told AAP it was the correct decision.

“The bunker viewed all the available angles and there was insufficient evidence to overturn the decision,” he said.

“For Mitchell Aubusson to be onside, both of his feet needed to be behind the ball.”

Archer said Aubusson was not put onside by the rebound off Lyon because the Manly skipper did not play at the ball.

He said Mitchell was not able to put Aubusson onside by chasing the ball through because the Steeden did not travel 10m and therefore the Roosters utility needed to retreat behind the position where the ball was kicked before he could join the play.

You've misinterpreted that article entirely.

 

[Fluffy]

where is the line for the knock on (forward pass)

 

[HoldenV8]

Tupou was offside, not sure why all the experts keep harping on about Aubusson. Tupou was offside and kept running until he was in a position to catch the last pass. Offside everyday of the week.

The NRL were apparently ok with Tupou because he "never got involved in the play". As you said though, he was running in support of Mitchell which to me is getting involved. If Mitchell was tackled before the line, Tupou was the one he would have tried to pass it to. Sounds (and looked) like he was involved.

 

[Liambrus]

This was exactly why I thought it was no try. Looking at it I honestly think Aubusson was onside, but Tupou is well offside (and in this case cant be run onside by the kicker because we didn't play at the ball) and ended up getting involved by scoring the try.

What's Tupou got to do with anything? Latrell Mitchell scored the try?

I think we got lucky here, it was a 50-50 call, leaning closer to the Rorters, but the game is filled with them. And the Rorters squandered a one-sided penalty count so they barely deserved to win.

Take the reffing errors for what they are and move on. Now bring on the Souffs.