Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Rugby League Forum' started by Canteen Worker, Aug 5, 2007.
What are thoughts on the Beaver try and Hicks tries. Were the refs right or were we robbed?
Beaver's was a try. That decision was f*cked. Hicks...there was plenty of doubt. Doubt of the obstruction and doubt over the grounding. I thought they would let the obstruction go (nothing in it), but I don't think he grounded it. I would've been surprised if they'd given it.
Hicks try was right in front of me. Without any bias the first look said try for sure. Second, benefit of the doubt.
Beaver's was a try. Hicks not sure.
All these refs are dumb schmucks. I suspect few of them have any inkling wjat "benefit of the doubt" means.
There were a plethora of wrong errors by the refs in this game against Manly. One thing that concerns me is the way the penalty count always gets to 5-1 or something similar against us to start games. Maybe this is why we consistently have poor starts... I hope Hasler takes the game up with Finch. Right from the start...that hand to knock the ball out of Kite's hands....
I will be very interested in the ref's game report on Beaver's try. Was he half a centimetre in front or was it Lyon? Either way it should have been paid.
They'll not get a game this week. I'll tell you now. I was livid !! That would have taken Beaver above Lamb wouldn't it?
I think the video ref's ruling was that Lyon was in front, and then came within 10m of the play or something absurd. It was a f*cked decision. Simple as that.
I tend to look at these things from the view that if it was the opposing side scoring those tries and it went to the video ref would I have been happy if the try had been awarded. In both tries I would have blown up deluxe if they had been awarded. Lyon was in front of Orford and came within 10m of the ball. He was offside according the letter of the law. Whether the rule is right is another topic.
Yep Pete is right, to the letter of the law, both calls correct. In practical sense, 1 was correct.