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

Thurston touches the ball, Foran is doubtful to have touched

Discussion in 'Rugby League Forum' started by Jado, Sep 17, 2012.

  1. Jado

    Jado Member

    +23 / 0
    I was convinced that Foran touched the ball too, the same as every commentator and fan. But I watched the dozen slow moes on the morning shows and footy show and can forensically prove it was Thurston whom projected the ball not Foran.


    The main angle the TV shows is seriously flawed, it very much appears that Foran is touching the ball but Foran's hand is obscuring Thurston's, therefore where's Thurston hand if the camera is only showing Foran's? The fact that we can't see Thurston's hand but can see Foran's means there must be space between Foran's hand and the ball, as Thurston hand was in there too. Or does everyone think that Thurston's hand simply vanished for moment, allowing Foran's hand to touch the ball?

    But more convincing to me was the fact that Thurston hand started moving towards the ball a fraction of a moment before Foran's hand reaches the ball; then Foran obscures Thurston's hand and both hands move in the same direction at the same time and the ball projects towards Manly's goal line. Remember Thurston's hand is closer to the ball and Foran's hand is behind Thurston's, so how does Foran touch the ball exactly?? he doesn't....Thurston does. The wider angle shows this even more clearly to me.

    Does anyone have a link or saved slow moe of the incident, I would like to show my mate whom i have managed to convince he has be brain washed by an illusion and every single voice talking of the event as if they did it themselves.
  2. Jethro

    Jethro This space is for rent Staff Member Premium Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    +1,815 / 7
  3. sean1976

    sean1976 Well-Known Member

    +326 / 15
    I thought the same thing but I'm unsure now since several people here have said they can see Foran's finger bending back. I haven't seen this, and can't imagine how this could be made out in any of the replays. Harrigan came out and said he thinks he touched it, but such is the public belief about the whole thing, i think he would have been scared to say anything else.
  4. ManlyBacker

    ManlyBacker Winging it Staff Member

    +971 / 7
  5. mickqld

    mickqld Sack Greenslime 2016 Tipping Competitor

    Gold Coast
    +3,720 / 55
    Exactly why the video ref was right to award it. 3 days later and 1000 replays there is still arguing over it. Video ref had about 2 min and half a dozen replays to make a decission and there was obvious doubt as to who touched it. Therefore he had no choice but to go BOD try. Now Harrigan comes out and says it was wrong yet there is no conclusive proof as to who touched it. Pissweak effort to hang the video refs out to dry like that bowing to media pressure.
  6. Jax24

    Jax24 Well-Known Member

    +386 / 0
    Yeah the right call was made at the time as it was inconclusive who touched it hence the Benefit of the Doubt ruling. Also wasnt another set awarded to Manly when Lyon dived on it by the Refs? Also showing they were or werent sure but ruled inconclusive and play on. Either way the fact is the try was awarded play on the call, play to the whistle and force the issue and decision to be made by the referees. Had that try been awarded against us I wouldn't have had a problem with it along with Jorges try. The BOD ruling was used in the correct manner and that Is the whole purpose of it. It's all history now so you can't live in the past you move on. Personally I thought the cam angle hid JTs hand and Fozzs hand possibly bent hitting JTs unseen hand. Also Fozz would have been trying to knock it back the opposite direction and the way that ball went looked liked it was knocked down rather than upwards. Also I noticed when the Ref was explaining the ruling to JT he argued they had been robbed twice BUT he didn't go off at the Ref saying Fozz touched the ball. Oh well all in the past now as I said lol.
  7. Shoe1

    Shoe1 Well-Known Member

    +4,358 / 66
    Why was chock's try disallowed? No one has mentioned this one. Was it because of a push? I feel gutted and dudded that this one was denied! Let's all rage about it!
  8. Chip and Chase

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

    +6,259 / 44
    Buhrer was offside at the kick, plus even if he wasn't Choc pushing the guy in the back was enough as well to disallow.
    As far as the Foran incident is concerned I'm in the "his finger bent back" camp so I believe he touched it. If the shoe was on the other foot and that try was awarded to the Cowboys I would have been dirty, so I can understand them blowing up. What I don't understand is them carrying on like they were robbed, they got a dodgy try and we got a dodgy try. 1-1. The better side won.
  9. Stevo

    Stevo Well-Known Member

    Old Bar, NSW
    +1,204 / 21
    From 1 angle it looks like Foran touched it but from another it clearly looks to me as if Thurstons hand moves towards it and hits it and Foran slaps Thurston on the hand which backs up his story about not touching it. That could be my maroon coloured glasses though.

    Ive been saying this for ages. While we have benefit of the doubt going to the attacking team there will always be matches decided by either wrong or close calls.

    If the benefit of doubt went to the defending team these calls wouldnt happen.

    For me if there is any doubt its a no try.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Moondog

    Moondog Grey-beard loon Premium Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    Hervey Bay
    +3,403 / 32
    The video evidence was inconclusive. Benefit of the doubt was the only possible decision. Pity Harrigan turned to water and would'nt back his officials.
  11. Stevo

    Stevo Well-Known Member

    Old Bar, NSW
    +1,204 / 21
  12. DSM5

    DSM5 Well-Known Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    +516 / 0
    Harrigan is a weak fool. He certainly knows how to throw his colleagues under the bus. How come no-one talks about the blatant strip and the forward pass leading to the Cows try? That should have been pulled up. We should have been awarded a penalty, been down their end, and who knows what may have happened? Now we have Hamstead being talked up to get back on the horse. Christ! are stocks that bad? And Cummins being the best ref in the game? please...
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Mr Krabs

    Mr Krabs Member

    +9 / 0
    Wasnt Hampster the video ref that awarded the try to Inglis in origin 1 and got dropped after it ?

    If it looks like a duck , flys like a duck chances are ... its a duck
  14. Napper

    Napper Well-Known Member

    +797 / 1
    Craaaab people craaaab people craaaaab people
  15. eagle-rock08

    eagle-rock08 Active Member

    +70 / 0
    After listening to that song my jocks started to itch
  16. Brissie Kid

    Brissie Kid Well-Known Member

    +812 / 10
    The reason people see or think they see Foran touch the ball is because he was wearing a maroon & white jersey.

    If the Cows had scored a try in exactly the same circumstances & the video ref ruled NO TRY there would be just as big whinge from most in league as there is now.
  17. mickqld

    mickqld Sack Greenslime 2016 Tipping Competitor

    Gold Coast
    +3,720 / 55
    Exactly right Brisie. This whole blow up iS because Manly won. If it was any other team there wouldn't be half the kurfuffle. So all the Manly haters carrying on can go eat a bag of dicks.
  18. stewartbrett(female supporter)

    stewartbrett(female supporter) Active Member

    +38 / 0
    I had another look at the replay (from closer up) and the angle that they decided to show in that, I'm thinking that they only wanted to show the angle where it appeared as though Foran had touched the ball just to give Thurston a reason to cover up the fact that he (Thurston) secretly knew he was actually the one that touched ball and that Foran's hand never made contact with it.
    And, to add icing to the cake, he said to the ref "Twice we've been robbed. Twice." In order for some media attention and make their supporters feel sorry for them. They need to see a side-on angle and get a clear verdict about whether Foran got a touch. But it's just inconclusive.
    On SKY News one of the Cowboys fans said, and I quote, "NSW hates QLD." What are they complaining about? QLD has won the State of Origin seven years in a row. What that's not enough now?!
  19. Oneyeagle

    Oneyeagle Active Member

    +30 / 0
    Imo Foran didn’t touch the ball and as a Benefit of the Doubt ruling I agree. However, if it was ruled No Try then I could have lived with that decision and would be saying nothing today.

    The way I see it JT try to bat it back and fell in the arms of Lyons. To cover up for his mistake he jumped on the ban wagon and pleaded innocent. He then went on to make further mistakes as the game came to a close.

    Feel sorry for JT that he is the only major influence in that team apart from Bowen... but we also had him covered in that game anyway.

    I thought the ball JT threw to Winterstein who went on to score was forward but hey Gould said that the Golden boy just threw the perfect pass. What do i know ! He is the NRL pet and of course the media will back him.

    Furthermore Harrigan had to say the refs got it wrong. Imagine the position he would have been in if he said it it was a try.
  20. niccipops

    niccipops un echidna spillo mia bevanda Premium Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    +5,435 / 49
    With so many camera angles you'd think there'd be front on footage of this. We would then have conclusive evidence either way.
    I think it came off JT and not just because I'm a Manly supporter. The (selected) repeated media images of this play show Foran on the outide and vision of JT's hands is obscured. From the other angle, the one they hardly play, it looks very much like it comes off JT.
    BOD try correct decision IMO.
    Anyway it's history whatever side of the fence you sit. Now, lets get Melbourne!

Share This Page