AUBUSSON WAS OFF SIDE - KENT WRONG!

[Simonmyers11]

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.

Aubusson being close to killer wasn't the reason for the no try

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

 

[Simonmyers11]

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.

I think eagle rock was referring to Tupou being involved in the play from an offside position as he was backing up, looking to catch that final pass and making a play to try and score, instead of staying out of the play all together

 

[Simonmyers11]

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

blob:http%3A//www.foxsports.com.au/e392c3fa-a764-4d8f-9d85-5d5e97fad89d

 

[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.

Ok, Bones - your right. i redrew the line from the ball (as states in the rule)

TRY!!!! f%%K. got lucky

 

[HappilyManly]

Aubusson being close to killer wasn't the reason for the no try

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

In the Archer explanation video, his graphic had the line from Lyon to Aubusson with the commentary that Aubusson was 'downtown'.

We deserved the win at any rate as their other try was off a forward pass

Amazing that this is more controversial than the two incidents in the GF replay

 

[manlyfan76]

Parralax error? If players are within the 10m and are offside then BOD goes to the defending team.

 

[HoldenV8]

Personally, I think with the 10 metre markings on the field, its about time we actually adopted something similar to grid iron and have little markings for every metre. It would help a lot of these on or offside issues.

It might also be useful in determining whether there was a forward pass or not.

 

[Peter C]

Looked ok to me, the knock on to Tupou was more dubious, anyway, I don't give a fark, this still doesn't make up for 2013

 

[HoldenV8]

Agreed Peter C. We could beat the Chooks in a dozen GF's from now and it still wouldn't make up for losing one to them the way it went down. Don't get me wrong, it would be great if that actually happened, but we'd still have one less premiership than we should have had.

@Brooke why did you give me a dummy spit? I actually think 1 metre markings would be a good idea because it would definitely help offside and forward pass calls.

 

[yokahontas]

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.

What Tupou has to do with it is that he is in front of the kicker, and is therefore not allowed to get involved in the play. Don't make the mistake of thinking that 'getting involved in the play' has to involve him touching the ball or a defender; if he is standing or moving in the line, backing up the ball carrier, he's involved in the play - his presence there affects the decision-making of the defenders because they have to consider the possibility of him getting the ball, even though he's not 'allowed' to be where he is.

Much the same way you can be penalised for running behind a decoy who doesn't touch a defender or the ball - he is unfairly confusing the defence because he is somewhere he shouldn't be.

 

[eagle66]

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.

Not comfortable with that reasoning. If that is the case, why can't you apply that to obstruction rulings? Lately we have seen players running through the line and because he was on the inside or outside shoulder it is deemed an obstruction but did not affect any of the defensive line. WHY can't we be like Rugby Union, "why let a forward pass get in the road of a try".

 

[KOMORI]

All I can say, is "have a look at the scoreboard princess, and cry_me_a_RIVER"!!

EADC.

 

[Dan]

The problem with these rugby league journos is that they have forgotten how to write genuine pieces about the game that are actually interesting. The state of journalism is pretty trashy these days and it sucks that the tabloids hold sway.

 

[Pittwater Legend]

Those lines will get you closer to making the right call but even then, they're not entirely accurate.

Aubusson needed to have both feet behind the ball. The ball was kicked in the air (off the ground) and the camera is looking at the play from behind. For those drawn lines to be entirely accurate, the ball would have to be on the ground when it is kicked. With the ball in the air, you can't judge where Aubusson is in relation to the ball unless you're looking at the play from exactly side on. Taking all of this into consideration, it's even more likely that Aubusson was offside.

 

[KOMORI]

And I'm fairly sure that the touchie had said off-side and it was ruled "no try"... So the bunker then must have clear evidence to over rule the on field decision.

Again, EAD!!

 

[Snake]

The game survived for 90 odd years without video referees.

I'd be happy to abolish the video referee for everything other than groundings and let the touch judges and referees make LIVE calls. They won't get every single one right, but they still get them wrong even with the video replays so why waste so much time?! I am happy to simply accept the referees live call and be done with it. Some will go against but plenty will be in our favour too.

The reason there is some scrutiny on every decision these days is because the fans, players, and coaches are fixated on perfection when it simply does not exist.

 

[simon64]

I give less than two s**ts about this.

If, for arguments sake, Aubisson was onside, the try Tupou scored came from a forward pass but nobody wants to talk about that one do they ?

Selective whingeing. I'm so over it.

 

[wombatgc]

What Tupou has to do with it is that he is in front of the kicker, and is therefore not allowed to get involved in the play. Don't make the mistake of thinking that 'getting involved in the play' has to involve him touching the ball or a defender; if he is standing or moving in the line, backing up the ball carrier, he's involved in the play - his presence there affects the decision-making of the defenders because they have to consider the possibility of him getting the ball, even though he's not 'allowed' to be where he is.

Much the same way you can be penalised for running behind a decoy who doesn't touch a defender or the ball - he is unfairly confusing the defence because he is somewhere he shouldn't be.

That's the point I was going to make. But no where as thourough.lol

 

[wombatgc]

Selective whingeing.

Oh, so you've met my wife then Simon? Lol

 

[simon64]

Oh, so you've met my wife then Simon? Lol

That's a whole new thread wombat.
Our wives must be best friends.