Wolf's no try

[Shoe1]

Looking at this on the replay, I'm not sure what to think. He knocks it back on to his chest then it is grounded by his chest with a bit of hand. At normal speed it is a try.

I am a biased manly observer, but from the perspective of "what if this try was scored against manly" I'm still 50/50. If I saw this replay of someone scoring against manly I would be thinking it would be awarded, and have a sinking feeling in my stomach while waiting for the video ref.

I believe the on field ref said try right? The evidence to overturn it was scant in my opinion.

 

[Chip and Chase]

I'd be spitting chips if they awarded that as a try against us. Having said that of course it would have been awarded against us had it been vatuvei or laumape. That's almost a given

They got it right, no control....no try.

 

[The Who]

It was the correct decision, unfortunately.
I thought we were lucky to be awarded the Hiku try when there was contact and possible interference. It just shows you the inconsistence of video refereeing. Remember the no-try ruling against Tom Symonds that would have turned the game againt Souffs?

 

[Masked Eagle]

I'm not blaming the video ref for that one. Wolfman should have just grounded it properly.

 

[Shoe1]

It was the correct decision, unfortunately.
I thought we were lucky to be awarded the Hiku try when there was contact and possible interference. It just shows you the inconsistence of video refereeing. Remember the no-try ruling against Tom Symonds that would have turned the game againt Souffs?

Again I can another side on that - the warrior pushed out at Horo(?) before he got to the defence. On balance the defender hit him before he hit the defender.

---

It was the correct decision, unfortunately.
I thought we were lucky to be awarded the Hiku try when there was contact and possible interference. It just shows you the inconsistence of video refereeing. Remember the no-try ruling against Tom Symonds that would have turned the game againt Souffs?

Again I can another side on that - the warrior pushed out at Horo(?) before he got to the defence. On balance the defender hit him before he hit the defender. 100% agree on the Symonds one v Souths.

 

[jbb/james]

No try

 

[HappilyManly]

Their second try had a foot long forward pass in the lead up pass

That is why Killer stopped (Manly must stop refereeing as they incorrectly assume that the Pinkie sees what they do :idea and that left the gap for the Warriors to score

Warriors loss in NZ I can live with , but the Dogs aren't taking any points out of Brookie this week

 

[Rambo1987]

I'd be spitting chips if they awarded that as a try against us. Having said that of course it would have been awarded against us had it been vatuvei or laumape. That's almost a given

They got it right, no control....no try.

DITTO

 

[Shoe1]

Ok so the consensus is no try.. How then do you explain the video ref decision of no try?? They're always wrong aren't they?

 

[Brissie Kid]

Just more inconsistency from NRL HQ. I agree with Shoe1 it was a knock back & down by Wolfie who then landed on the ball with his torso. Try.

Now take what happened in that Wolfie no try and imagine Wolfie has instead gone up high for the ball & all of that still happened. The Souths game at Brookie had a Souths try where the winger went up high and knocked the ball back & down before he landed on the ball. The video ref looked at it and saw the ball went backwards as it went downwards. Try.

The no try in NZ for Wolfie was very similar to what happened in the no try to Wolfie near the end of the Souths game.

The only difference in the three was the height above the ground. If you are trying to take bomb & knock it back and downwards the video referee seems to be able to get through his head that is all ok. When it happens close to ground he wants to call it a knock on.

No consistency other than adding in the anti Manly factor too.

 

[niccipops]

I would have awarded the Wolf one. 50/50 call. I would not have awarded two of the Kiwi ones. One for the forward passes and the other for a double movement. I would have given penalties to Manly for the warriors dodgy play the balls. I also would have found a reason to send a Kiwi off and he would have deserved it.
I think I'd make a good ref.

 

[bob dylan]

I have said this 100 times here.

In your minds eye replace the Manly player scoring the try with an image of Billy Slater. The score is Manly 18 vs Storm 16, 79 minute mark and its Grand Final Day.

See its simple.

 

[globaleagle]

I have said this 100 times here.

In your minds eye replace the Manly player scoring the try with an image of Billy Slater. The score is Manly 18 vs Storm 16, 79 minute mark and its Grand Final Day.

See its simple.

Then shutup already! lol.

I thought rabs said that under the new rule it's no try as the ball can't go from hand to torso. Torso only, no problems.

I didn't have a prob with the call at the time. He should've just grabbed the damn thing!

 

[Shoe1]

I have said this 100 times here.

In your minds eye replace the Manly player scoring the try with an image of Billy Slater. The score is Manly 18 vs Storm 16, 79 minute mark and its Grand Final Day.

See its simple.

I fear it would be awarded in that situation.

 

[mozgrame]

I have no fear it would be awarded in that situation.

 

[HappilyManly]

In my mind's eye, Slater won't be in the GF in 2013, Wolfie will

Niccipops, you would look great in Pink refereeing Manly to another worthy Premiership

 

[niccipops]

In my mind's eye, Slater won't be in the GF in 2013, Wolfie will

Niccipops, you would look great in Pink refereeing Manly to another worthy Premiership

Cheers. I'd ensure we wouldn't be Cecchined.

 

[Shoe1]

Anyone who just saw the reynolds try must agree with me now. Ref says try, looks like no try on video, but still we get robbed. The 79th minute grand final slater try test applies.