1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Storm 2 try - video referee

Discussion in 'Rugby League Forum' started by Brissie Kid, Sep 1, 2013.

  1. Brissie Kid

    Brissie Kid Well-Known Member

    2,691
    741
    Ratings:
    +827 / 10
    I see the video referee gave the ok to the Storm 2nd try as Slater knocking over a Manly defender had nothing to do with the play & then the try.

    WTF???????????????????????

    What Slater did had nothing to do with interpreting obstruction, but the video referees seemed to be only concerned with that.

    WHAT THEY IGNORED was that Slater was 10M OFFSIDE UPFIELD and knocked an opponent over.

    HULLO?????????????????

    So at some point in a game a player can just wander upfield & go offside until he reaches the fullback & just knock him over, as that has nothing to do with the play going on behind him?????????????

    The referees were so caught up in the obstruction rules they forgot to just look at what happened. You can't just get 10m offiside & push an opponent over.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Shoe1

    Shoe1 Well-Known Member

    6,216
    1,987
    Ratings:
    +4,631 / 74
    Yeah I was in front of that on the northern hill. It seemed there were a few storm players up in our line, and the defenders and the ref all stopped following the play because it was going to be an obvious penalty. The ref even said no try right? Mind boggling.
     
  3. Chip and Chase

    Chip and Chase True Supporter Staff Member Administrator Premium Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    12,810
    3,170
    Ratings:
    +6,281 / 44
    By your logic every decoy runner should be penalised for being offside. They all get in front of the ball. Slater started onside and ran through expecting cronk to kick, but instead he passed behind him and the play continued. I have no problem with where he was that happens hundreds of times a game. I do have a problem with the video ref over ruling the on field call of no try. There was not enough evidence in my opinion to say that the interference wasn't substantial enough.
     
  4. Brissie Kid

    Brissie Kid Well-Known Member

    2,691
    741
    Ratings:
    +827 / 10
    I don't either. I'm just saying here in this case Slater was so far away from the ball & upfield, that he was not a decoy at all, but a blatantly 10m or more offside player who deliberately knocked over an opponent.
     
  5. Dan

    Dan Administrator Staff Member Administrator 2016 Tipping Competitor

    32,369
    3,609
    Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Ratings:
    +5,460 / 74
    Any person who knows a ight bit about football could tell you that the contact from billy turned a man onan defense to a storm 1 man overlap. Whether that happened 5m from the try or 50 it had a substantial impact on the try, being 1 man short on the inside forced Lyon to stay in one and wolfman to have to come inside. Had slater not been there g stewart and lawrence slide over and release the outside defenders
     
  6. silvertail

    silvertail Well-Known Member

    786
    314
    Ratings:
    +398 / 6
    Agree. Just because we won, doesn't mean that we shouldn't ask NRL for clarification. It's a joke, if the video ref thinks that a decoy runner has no impact on the play just because the try was scored out wide.

    Another reason to complain is that most other teams don't have lot of creativity and overly rely on decoy plays. I'd hate to have a try like the one against the storm awarded against us again in the finals.

    Need an investigation into this.
     
  7. Brissie Kid

    Brissie Kid Well-Known Member

    2,691
    741
    Ratings:
    +827 / 10
    Looked at it again on replay. Slater connected with the Manly defender while the Storm ball passer was still on his right over near the goal posts, and only just threw the ball to a player at least 15m behind Slater. Slater was never a decoy. How they considered he was one is ridiculous. He was a blatantly offside player who just knocked over a defender.
     
  8. KOMORI

    KOMORI Born and bred an Eagle

    3,702
    1,054
    Brisbane
    Ratings:
    +3,269 / 53
    All I can say is that Horseface ruled it as no try. You read that correctly: Jarred Maxwell said "no try".

    And he HATES Manly.

    The video ref then decided that taking out a defensive player (granted, Gifty may have pulled a bit of a "Hollywood") but the fact remains that a defensive player was not able to play his part due to interference: the result being an overlap and a try.

    Clear cut. Even if the roles had been reversed I'd have been happy to see it pulled up.

    Absolute howler of a decision.
     
  9. Brissie Kid

    Brissie Kid Well-Known Member

    2,691
    741
    Ratings:
    +827 / 10
    I agree but I'm going further. Even if the defender had no hope of getting across, you simply can't be allowed as an attacker to be 15m ahead of the ball & knock over an opponent to ground.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. simon64

    simon64 Well-Known Member Premium Member

    2,271
    990
    Ratings:
    +2,073 / 26
    Slater definitely hampered the defenses ability to cover the play.

    Two weeks ago, when Stevie scored there was evidently not enough evidence to overturn the decision.

    All of a sudden it was dead set certain that the interference on Gift had nothing to do with the try being scored.

    Consistency anyone ?
     
  11. MadMarcus

    MadMarcus Local Lunatic 2016 Tipping Competitor

    5,521
    2,485
    Ratings:
    +5,803 / 53
    According to the vidiot there was "minimal contact" between Slater and Gift, which is why he overruled the on field decision...
     
  12. Hamster Huey

    Hamster Huey Space Invader Premium Member

    1,828
    643
    Ratings:
    +990 / 7
    We all whinged here about players diving against Manly, yet so many of us have ignored that gripe when one of our own did it.

    Gift rolled the dice to milk a penalty but it back-fired. There was no contact to substantiate him losing his legs like he did. We've been filthy are opposition players acting prior, and I think we're focusing on the wrong issue in this case.

    I hope none of our guys are inclined to try this again, particularly during a closer finals match-up.
     
  13. Ralphie

    Ralphie Well-Known Member Premium Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    3,648
    489
    Bredbo
    Ratings:
    +2,093 / 231
    The first try was a forward pass from cronk to slater and that play usually is. Why is this not being scrutiised.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Dan

    Dan Administrator Staff Member Administrator 2016 Tipping Competitor

    32,369
    3,609
    Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Ratings:
    +5,460 / 74
    especially compared to the pass from Symonds which went backwards and was called forward, then to see a blatant forward pass let go was annoying especially when Storm were throwing them forward as often as they were throwing them back
     

Share This Page