Matai No Try

[jbb/james]

I believe it was a try, video couldnt prove it, henry thought differently, as he did on a lot of decisions tonight

 

[Mal Cochrane]

TC, the vision from the back showed the ball on the ground at first contact, however I believe this was before the line. We know momentum got him over, and the ball does slightly lift due to Matai's arm and then the weight of everyone comes on top of him when we lose vision.

You and i don;t know what happens after that, whether the few more inches forward allowed matai to purposely on non purposely have his arm in a different angle allowing the edge of the ball to protrude more, who can know. The refs apparently saw a souths hand underneath the ball?

Common sense tells me no one saw where the ball ended up.

 

[Ron E. Gibbs]

I don't have an issue with the no try result coming back based on the system this year

I have a huge problem with the contact on Matais head going unpunished though, especially followed by the bull**** on Horo

I noticed that, too. It was Inglis and he clearly got him high trying to stop the try. Matai scored anyway, only for the refs to take it off him.

 

[weev]

It was NO TRY.

And just an example of the little things that need to be done right. The bunnies stopped this (even through video obstruction).

Manly needed a hit out with a top team about now.

 

[mozgrame]

Just watching the replay again, there is no way in hell that should have been denied. Sure his arm was under the ball when he skidded across the line, but when he came to rest, it MUST have touched at least a blade of grass as his weight pressed down and momentum came to a stop.

 

[StuBoot]

It seems with the video ref, they look at the obvious ones over and over.
I think it was the last camera angle that looked like it was touching the stripe, but they only looked at it once and all the other replays that were inconclusive over and over. Not real sure on it but I'd have liked another look.

 

[Brissie Kid]

Anderson promised we would not get rule book lawyers ajudicating in the video box this year but making of real rugby league decisions.

 

[Chip and Chase]

As soon as Perenara said no try we were screwed. Not enough video evidence to overturn the call. We needed hot spot

 

[StuBoot]

With the way the rule is structured now - ie the ref having to give an opinion either way - it takes out the benefit of the doubt or gut feel. Obviously Perenara couldn't see so he couldn't be sure but he has to make a decision, why can't he just say he's not sure and leave the decision the video ref...that's common sense though!

 

[Kevinward777]

I'm not convinced it was a try the ball got tucked under his arm as it slid over very hard to ground it in that position, i'm sure he was easily over the line though.

You would have to be one of the larger penises trawling a discussion forum. Operating behind false sincerity and jumping over every Manly loss, one might actually consider that you are Dessie in disguise, except for the fact your technical input is comprised mostly of turd that you attempt to polish. Can't wait for the Raiders to punch holes through your team this weekend.

PS last year you were going to unveil your true identity to a few loyal subjects over a few ales.....did that end up happening?

 

[Umina Eagle]

Hahahahahah

I'm not convinced it was a try the ball got tucked under his arm as it slid over very hard to ground it in that position, i'm sure he was easily over the line though.

You would have to be one of the larger penises trawling a discussion forum. Operating behind false sincerity and jumping over every Manly loss, one might actually consider that you are Dessie in disguise, except for the fact your technical input is comprised mostly of turd that you attempt to polish. Can't wait for the Raiders to punch holes through your team this weekend.

PS last year you were going to unveil your true identity to a few loyal subjects over a few ales.....did that end up happening?

 

[Brissie Kid]

Which is what Toovey is saying. The ball was clearly on the ground immediately before the line, so just how & when was it back up above the ground for a referee to call held up?

Yes you can't see the ball on the ground on the line but everything in anyone that knows rugby league knows that was a try.

That's what the NRL said at the start of the season we wouldn't get from referees in 2013.

 

[Top End Eagle]

I'm not convinced it was a try the ball got tucked under his arm as it slid over very hard to ground it in that position, i'm sure he was easily over the line though.

Boo!

 

[Technical Coach]

I'm not convinced it was a try the ball got tucked under his arm as it slid over very hard to ground it in that position, i'm sure he was easily over the line though.

You would have to be one of the larger penises trawling a discussion forum. Operating behind false sincerity and jumping over every Manly loss, one might actually consider that you are Dessie in disguise, except for the fact your technical input is comprised mostly of turd that you attempt to polish. Can't wait for the Raiders to punch holes through your team this weekend.

PS last year you were going to unveil your true identity to a few loyal subjects over a few ales.....did that end up happening?

I said what lol---and if I did it was all in fun---- seems you are holding a grudge that I did not choose you.

I hate us losing kills me to see it, I have my views and stick with them could care less what others think.

 

[Merdy33]

My gut feeling is that the vidoe refs wanted to award it. But due to Perenara not having the courage to assume that some part of the ball touched the ground, they had no choice.

We really need to show displeasure on the field at these rubbish calls. Its the only way to put pressure on them and change the momentum. By that, I mean stay calm inside, and be ready to play on, but put on an act. Stevie just shook his head and played on. Someone should have got in Perenara's face.

 

[Technical Coach]

TC, the vision from the back showed the ball on the ground at first contact, however I believe this was before the line. We know momentum got him over, and the ball does slightly lift due to Matai's arm and then the weight of everyone comes on top of him when we lose vision.

You and i don;t know what happens after that, whether the few more inches forward allowed matai to purposely on non purposely have his arm in a different angle allowing the edge of the ball to protrude more, who can know. The refs apparently saw a souths hand underneath the ball?

Common sense tells me no one saw where the ball ended up.

In the end I am fine with the decision it's not like you can blame the ref for a poor decision as nothing proves his decision was wrong.

The Horo hit on Inglis was beyond a poor decision and so obvious on the replay I could not believe it is up for review.

 

[ALinda]

Matai scored that try right in front of me and I say, with my unbiased hat on, that was definitely a try. The no try decision then swung the momentum and it lost us the game.

 

[COMMANDER]

The ref was not in a position to see it properly to adjudicate on field. Where it falls down is that he is forced to say 'Try' or 'No try', where he was not in a position to give an opinion.

He can't say "I don't know" and refer it to the video ref for a decision, which is what should happen.

Logic would dictate that is was a try.

 

[Brissie Kid]

So where does it leave this note from the ARLC & NRL rules of the game on page 12 of their own NRL 2013 rules?

2013 EDITION
RUGBY LEAGUE LAWS OF THE GAME
INTERNATIONAL LEVEL
WITH
NOTES ON THE LAWS
AND
NRL TELSTRA PREMIERSHIP INTERPRETATIONS
(APPROVED BY THE AUSTRALIAN RUGBY LEAGUE COMMISSION)

Referee unsighted
The Referee should not disallow a try because he was not in a position to see the grounding of the ball.
http://www.arlra.org.au/pdf-files/NRL_Rules_Book_2013_Web.pdf

Applying the NRL's own rule the referee onfield in the Matai call should have called for a video replay with a "we have a try" call as he was unsighted when Matai crossed the try line.

Instead he chose to call "no try" based on what he saw when Matai & the ball were well into the ingoal.

What mattered was what happened at the try line, not what he saw metres into the ingoal when Matai stopped moving & tacklers got under him & the ball.

As he didn't see where the ball was when Matai crossed the line, but it was under him, he in my view should have been obligated to apply the rule from page 12 and award a "try" outright, or call the video ref & say "we have a try".

That would have given the video referees the chance to apply sensible decision and follow the logic conveyed by the rule on page 12 about awarding an unsighted try. As Toovey said at the presser, you could clearly see the ball on the ground just before the line.

No doubt Souths later got under the ball & the referee saw that, but no way could they have done it before Matai crossed the line, and in any case the rule from page 12 means the referees are to give the benefit of the doubt still to the attacking team when the ball can't be seen.

If they try to fine Toovey $10K he should shove the above NRL rule book straight back at the NRL.

 

[Berkeley_Eagle]