Matai Try photo evidence - it's a try!

[MadMarcus]

They do not have a lot of variety in their pack, particularly at prop

Yeah. I can hardly tell Rose and Lawrence apart.

 

[StuBoot]

That match is finished, we wuz robbed, let's move on.

Meanwhile, spotted this on NRL site. True we haven't scored many tries against the top 3 - but we seem to frequently go within centimetres of scoring (or score but have it disallowed, like Matai's)

So ... is this really a problem ... if so, is it something @"Technical Coach" can fix?


Manly a level below

Manly are not at the level of South Sydney, the Sydney Roosters and Melbourne.

Despite six straight wins and a very competitive showing in a 22-10 defeat at the hands of the Rabbitohs on Friday night, the Sea Eagles’ inability to fire a shot against the top three teams in the premiership suggests they are at least a level off the top sides.

Geoff Toovey’s post-match tantrum did little to assuage concerns that Manly don’t have what it takes to go all the way. They were flying last year before disintegrating in the finals and they could be facing another meek finale to their 2013 campaign.

The Sea Eagles have tackled the top three teams on five occasions in 2013 for just a draw and four losses. Against the current top eight they are 4-6-1 while against bottom eight teams they are 9-1.

Manly have the cattle to beat up on bad teams but can’t run with the big dogs of the premiership. And it is their attack that has proven the concern, unable to break down the top defences. Manly have averaged just 9.6 points against the Bunnies, Chooks and Storm this year, not surpassing two tries in any match. It was the same tale on Friday, when they had much of the early possession and field position but couldn’t put it to their scoreboard advantage.

The problem for Manly is that their attack is very simple and somewhat predictable. What they do, they do exceptionally well, putting men in motion and running block plays better than any other team. But there is not a lot else to their attack. They do not have a lot of variety in their pack, particularly at prop, nor do they possess any great speed. They run a very structured, very vanilla attack and they do it very well. That works against poor teams. It doesn’t against the best.

Manly will likely be there at the preliminary finals stage of the season. Another inglorious end, however, would not surprise if Geoff Toovey does not expand their attack.

http://www.sportsfan.com.au/manly-are-a-level-below/tabid/91/newsid/110336/default.aspx

Unfortunately I think that is a pretty accurate article on how we are looking this year. Not that I hold Tunks in much esteem but Tunks was saying on Talkin Sport that he just feels there's something missing from Manly that puts us behind the other 3 teams. I don't really feel we are good enough to win it this year. I really think the loss of Joe and Kingy will be too much to overcome. That size and penetration off the bench is that little x factor we are missing and will need to challenge for the premiership. Now there has to be a big question mark on Chocs fitness. We desperately need a fit and on fire Tom Symonds back but I just think our bench is our downfall without those big 2 boppers.

Your record during the year means diddly squat.

The Storm beat us twice in '08 and bent us over in the previous GF.

Even going back to '82/'83 ( and yes I know it's a different game now but it still hurts) we beat Parra in the semis one of which was 20-0 and we know how that ended up.

The game is now at the stage where 1 or 2 bounces, refs intervention etc can mean hanging on or getting blown away. Look at last Friday - Matai scores and I have no doubt we win going away. We lost by 12 but it could've ended up more. Once you're against the clock the points can rack up.

Souffs were 20 mins ( and that dodgy decision ) away from having their credibility severely questioned so this article is just filler.

Been in both games v the chooks and Souffs, drew v Storm.

Come the semis, it'll be like another game for us and the Storm.

Pressure and expectation does strange things if you're not used to it.

The press will rave on about the Chooks tomorrow but they only beat the Tigers who are a basket case, it took an iffy video refs call to break their backs and then it was touch footy.

---

They do not have a lot of variety in their pack, particularly at prop

Yeah. I can hardly tell Rose and Lawrence apart.

King and Joe look similar in their civvies.

 

[weev]

Insufficient video evidence to overrule the decision?

-- Then how was I able to find proof from official site on my laptop using the Ch9 footage? Does the video ref use an old iPhone to review? What ever happened to frame by frame..?

"Toovey was adamant the Matai ruling was the turning point in the match. But referees performance manager Daniel Anderson said: ''The officials followed the proper procedures in the video-review process and arrived at the correct decision. The referee on the field ruled the player grounded the ball short and was then held up, and there was insufficient video evidence to warrant overruling that decision.''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/manly-to-review-referees-report-before-deciding-on-tooveys-10000-fine-20130819-2s70k.html#ixzz2cQTBja7x

 

[COMMANDER]

What is holding this ball up, except a shadow...?

Pic if anything shows the ball not hitting the ground and up against his arm, convinces me more it was not a try.

You are entitled to your opinion on it, however much in the mistaken minority it may place you.

 

[Berkeley_Eagle]

souffs need to rely on tries off kicks
like to see the stats on how many tries from kicks have been scored this year

 

[Brookvale]

The creeps in pink are CHEATS!

Earlier this year, they gave Canterburys bullturd Reynolds a try, dissallow this one.

i am going tell them in their face next brooky game!

 

[weev]

What is holding this ball up, except a shadow...?

Pic if anything shows the ball not hitting the ground and up against his arm, convinces me more it was not a try.

Matai's full weight is on the ball too. I would like to see any man with only part of their arm under the ball and dive and slide for almost a metre with their full weight on it and some part of the ball not clearly touch the ground. It defies logic, physics and imagination.

 

[Brissie Kid]

Thanks to google. The Dogs v Manly at Brookvale.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/nrl/bulldogs-hold-on-for-win-over-manly-in-golden-night-of-drama/story-fnca0von-1226664157746



As for Manly coach Geoff Toovey, he had a few choice words for his players as well. But he saved his best for the match officials, launching a scathing critique of their performance as his side endured a controversial defeat at Brookvale Oval.

Former Manly half Trent Hodkinson stepped up to kick a penalty goal in the fourth minute of extra time to seal the victory for the Bulldogs, ending a night of high drama.

Canterbury five-eighth Josh Reynolds, awarded a controversial try midway through the second half which extended his side's lead to 18 points, appeared to milk the penalty in a tackle which led to Hodkinson's shot at goal. As Manly players protested, they were marched 10m.

That was all Hodkinson needed. As the kick sailed through the posts from 40m out, Manly chief executive David Perry took aim at NRL communications director John Brady, at the back of the press box.

"You have a lot to answer for John," he said.

More was to come from Toovey.

"I think the last penalty was pretty well obvious as well but that's only my opinion," Toovey said. "The game's gone so it doesn't matter. In my opinion they conned the ref and that's what happened. Too good, they were just too good."

The post-match anger added some edge to a gripping contest on Sydney's northern beaches. When Reynolds scored his contentious try midway through the second half, Canterbury led 30-12.

Reynolds put the foot down, sliced through and reached out to score. At least that's the way it appeared, a view only reinforced when referee Shayne Hayne gestured try before sending the matter to video referees Ashley Klein and Henry Perenara.

Replays seemed to suggest Reynolds had been short of the line but Perenara and Klein couldn't find enough evidence to overturn Hayne's decision.

"I thought he was short, everyone else thought he was short, but the blokes who were there didn't," Toovey said. "I think it was short but that's only my opinion."

Either way, whether Matai or Reynolds "try", whether Inglis or Reynolds faked in tackles to milk penalties, the decisions every time went against Manly.

 

[The Indian]

It was only a week ago that many so called experts were saying we had the best backline and most variation in attack in the comp( after we put big scores on a series of terrible teams ) ....now based on a series of events on Friday and a Warren Ryan like simplistic look at raw stats...we lack the power in attack against the top teams.

Neither is true.

I have thought we are one step off the top teams all year because we lack the same go forward/power as Souths or the Roosters - if anything Friday night made me more encouraged not less after we dominated them for 60 minutes then never saw the ball in the last 20. Penalties, tries disallowed, players held up, players milking penalties, ricochet off goalposts for tries, tries off bombs. Plenty of reason to think they cant all go against us again next time.

 

[MadMarcus]

Insufficient video evidence to overrule the decision?

-- Then how was I able to find proof from official site on my laptop using the Ch9 footage? Does the video ref use an old iPhone to review? What ever happened to frame by frame..?

"Toovey was adamant the Matai ruling was the turning point in the match. But referees performance manager Daniel Anderson said: ''The officials followed the proper procedures in the video-review process and arrived at the correct decision. The referee on the field ruled the player grounded the ball short and was then held up, and there was insufficient video evidence to warrant overruling that decision.''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/manly-to-review-referees-report-before-deciding-on-tooveys-10000-fine-20130819-2s70k.html#ixzz2cQTBja7x

Interesting Anderson doesn't go on to explain how Perenara used his x-ray vision to see that Matai was held up.

I think they got the video decision wrong, but Perenara's call was the real clanger. If Perenara said try it would have been a try. The buck stops with him.

 

[Dan]

What is holding this ball up, except a shadow...?

Pic if anything shows the ball not hitting the ground and up against his arm, convinces me more it was not a try.

I agree than shows it off the ground, however remember he had planted it before the line, for it to get to that point means it would have had to have been slid along the ground after his momentum stopped as well he had rested back over the ball

 

[Rex]

It only needs to touch one blade of grass to be a try. Anyone who could confidently say that ball didn't touch a blade of grass must have some mysterious supernatural powers.

That the referees and their boss (and Todd) confidently assert they got that decision right only reflects very poorly on them.

 

[StuBoot]

It only needs to touch one blade of grass to be a try. Anyone who could confidently say that ball didn't touch a blade of grass must have some mysterious supernatural powers.

That the referees and their boss (and Todd) confidently assert they got that decision right only reflects very poorly on them.

Mortimer's try last night, minimal contact if any with the grass.

Sure as hell if the ref said no try, the video ref couldn't conclusively say he got it down.

 

[globaleagle]

I'll give it a go.....

No way was that ball grounded on any blade of grass.

No try every day of the week if it wasn't easts or souffs playing

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

It only needs to touch one blade of grass to be a try.

Wonder how long until we see a player carrying spare blades of grass in his pocket, then claiming a try on a technicality. I can imagine Josh Reynolds would give it a go.

 

[Daddycool08]

Would a more computer literate person post both the Reynolds "try" and Matais "no try" on the one page so we can have a look at it?

 

[Rodo]

I think it all comes down to how the on field ref viewed the possible tries at the time.

In both instances the video ref thought there wasn't conclusive video evidence (ie. without any possible doubt) for them to over-rule the decision and that's why one was awarded and one wasn't.

The issue about conclusive evidence comes up often when there is an act of foul play when someone is about to score a try. In these instances very rarely is a try awarded even though more than likely a try would have been scored.

 

[Rex]

Taking it away from the specifics of the ridiculous no-try ruling to Matai, this incident once again exposes fundamental problems with the SYSTEM being used.

A referee is confident about a try and is forced to make a decision that can't be easily overruled - that's no big problem. But a referee is not confident and is forced to make a decision that can't be easily overruled - that IS a big problem.

The common sense outcome is to make the referee fully accountable for the decision by having him review his own decision on video to confirm his own decision. Get rid of the referees in the video box - get better decisions, more accountability, and save some money at the same time!

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Is that what they do in American football, the on-field ref has a monitor on the sideline and review their own decisions?