Joined: Mar 03 2004 Posts: 5308 Location: On a hill above Mold, North Wales
Roofaldo wrote:It's one bad call. Think people are over-reacting. After all, it's not like it was a 6 point game.
It did affect the game somewhat but I get the feeling its made it a 26 point win for Saints, rather than a 12 point one (ish). Crusaders had put in a heck of an effort and it told late on, they were bushed.
Joined: May 25 2002 Posts: 37704 Location: Zummerzet, where the zoider apples grow
BigRob wrote:No, the defenders arm. Ball quite clearly didnt go down far enough to touch the ground.
Clearly?
Did you have another camera angle not available to Smith or the rest of the viewing public?
The only clear thing about it was a clear case of "benefit of doubt"
The older I get, the better I was
Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."
cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan
No the one were he got It it down. Or doesnt that fit In with all the bullsh!t
[quote='Fishsta"']I've always thought of McGuire as a good player, and I wouldn't normally wish injury on any player, but there was a certain hint of poetic justice to that.
[/quote]
Another classic:
[quote='Fishsta']You forgot to take off the "Saints Reduction Factor" when calculating the ban.
Standard suspension / Saints Reduction Factor = Actual ban for Saints player.
Therefore (2 / 3) = 0.666
0.666 < 1 therefore actual ban equals "less than 1 match".
I think we have had the three worst video-referee decisions since it's introduction this year: Early in season Leeds Rhinos given 'try' (was it JJB?) - even he got up and shook his head! Then the Liam Watts given 'try' at Castleford. Now the Roby 'try'. These are not cases where there is an argument both ways, or that depend on the interpretation of a rule. They are all simply and clearly wrong when looked at within the rules of the game.
Its amazing what biterness success causes. Emmitts "No Try" and Robys try evened themselves out. Both were unclear, to the letter of the law both should have been given benefit of the doubt.
nottinghamtiger wrote:I think we have had the three worst video-referee decisions since it's introduction this year: Early in season Leeds Rhinos given 'try' (was it JJB?) - even he got up and shook his head! Then the Liam Watts given 'try' at Castleford. Now the Roby 'try'. These are not cases where there is an argument both ways, or that depend on the interpretation of a rule. They are all simply and clearly wrong when looked at within the rules of the game.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 87 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
