Rex
Bencher
The Cowboys have bleated on endlessly about how they were supposedly duded. They have 3 claims.
1. Claim 1: The last try should have been a no-try because Foran touched the ball.
The facts:
a. According to the rules of the game the referees MUST award the try unless they are CERTAIN Foran touched the ball. Is there any doubt at all?
b. Neither of the referees on the field thought he had touched the ball.
c. Neither of the touch judges on the field thought he had touched the ball.
d. The two video referees agreed they could not be certain he had touched the ball.
e. The only person who knows whether there was a touch – Foran – says he didn’t.
f. The only camera angles which support the theory he touched the ball obscure Thurston’s hand and arm behind Foran’s – optical illusions. There is only a certainty that Thurston touched the ball because otherwise Foran’s hand would have needed to pass through Thurston’s hand to get to the ball.
g. A microscopic finger bend? The Emporer’s new clothes? If you want to see a finger bend others didn’t see wind back to the 38th minute when there is a HUGE finger bend in virtually identical circumstances – by a Cowboys player – and the line dropout decision incorrectly goes against Manly. Only difference is Manly was good enough to hold them out.
2. Claim 2: Taufua made a double movement
The facts:
a. The side-on view indicates the ball touched the line at first planting before the ball lifted. BOD try before anything further happens.
b. The referee believed that momentum carried the ball over the line rather than a second movement causing this. The fact that Taufua was full stretch initially and ended up with his hips on the line proves the referee was correct.
c. The ball was only lifted momentarily through the efforts of the Cowboys defender.
d. At normal speed, the illusion of a possible double movement disappears.
3. Claim 3: Taufua forced the ball in the in-goal before he made a long run
The facts:
a. Taufua did fall in the in-goal with the ball in his possession and the ball did touch the ground.
b. The referee ruled it was not intentionally grounded.
c. As it turned out, the Cowboys got no disadvantage from this ruling because Manly immediately lost possession at the same place the Cowboys would have started their six from a line dropout.
d. In the 16th minute the identical scenario happened to Bowen, he fell in-goal with possession, the ball touched the ground, and he was allowed to play on and passed the ball to try and get out. Lyon challenged the referee why Bowen was allowed to play on after grounding the ball, and apparently got the same ruling that the ball was not intentionally grounded.
1. Claim 1: The last try should have been a no-try because Foran touched the ball.
The facts:
a. According to the rules of the game the referees MUST award the try unless they are CERTAIN Foran touched the ball. Is there any doubt at all?
b. Neither of the referees on the field thought he had touched the ball.
c. Neither of the touch judges on the field thought he had touched the ball.
d. The two video referees agreed they could not be certain he had touched the ball.
e. The only person who knows whether there was a touch – Foran – says he didn’t.
f. The only camera angles which support the theory he touched the ball obscure Thurston’s hand and arm behind Foran’s – optical illusions. There is only a certainty that Thurston touched the ball because otherwise Foran’s hand would have needed to pass through Thurston’s hand to get to the ball.
g. A microscopic finger bend? The Emporer’s new clothes? If you want to see a finger bend others didn’t see wind back to the 38th minute when there is a HUGE finger bend in virtually identical circumstances – by a Cowboys player – and the line dropout decision incorrectly goes against Manly. Only difference is Manly was good enough to hold them out.
2. Claim 2: Taufua made a double movement
The facts:
a. The side-on view indicates the ball touched the line at first planting before the ball lifted. BOD try before anything further happens.
b. The referee believed that momentum carried the ball over the line rather than a second movement causing this. The fact that Taufua was full stretch initially and ended up with his hips on the line proves the referee was correct.
c. The ball was only lifted momentarily through the efforts of the Cowboys defender.
d. At normal speed, the illusion of a possible double movement disappears.
3. Claim 3: Taufua forced the ball in the in-goal before he made a long run
The facts:
a. Taufua did fall in the in-goal with the ball in his possession and the ball did touch the ground.
b. The referee ruled it was not intentionally grounded.
c. As it turned out, the Cowboys got no disadvantage from this ruling because Manly immediately lost possession at the same place the Cowboys would have started their six from a line dropout.
d. In the 16th minute the identical scenario happened to Bowen, he fell in-goal with possession, the ball touched the ground, and he was allowed to play on and passed the ball to try and get out. Lyon challenged the referee why Bowen was allowed to play on after grounding the ball, and apparently got the same ruling that the ball was not intentionally grounded.
