Seriously, are you on medication or something? or is this a wind up.

Do you know the rules of the game? I suggest you read them. Because if you knew them you would see that the dissallowed tries were entirely correct decisions, FACT.

It is an opinion if there is some debate as to whether the rule was broken at all. There is not debate here, unless the person debating is clueless.

I will give you that the Kirke pass on first seeing could be open to debate and an opinion. But you only have to watch the match on telly afterwards to see that he clearly passes the ball in a backwards motion and the ball its the ground and bounces forward. In the eyes of the ref no rule was broken and therefore not dissallowed. And no doubt had he gone to the VR same decision.

But I will give you that any 50/50 call is opinion. Shame you can not see that the other two calls were 100% correct, nothing near to 50/50.

Jeez,
refs have bad games all the time. Let's move on from Friday - the ref didn't lose us the game, our poor defence and lack of respect for the ball did (what was Ainscough doing when he tried to kick that ball away?). Those 40/20s were good kicks and if Trent had done them while he was here we'd be calling him God. In my opinion, our disallowed tries were correctly denied - it's time to move on...

Kirke releases the ball before the 20 metre line. It hits the ground after the 20 metre line, therefore it's a knock on as soon as it hits the ground, it doesn't matter which way it bounces after that

Not that I agree with you on the lines, because I dont. But what matters is does Kirke pass the ball in a backwards motion. The answer is Yes.

Where does Kirke end up in relation to the ball?

And by the way.

Take a good look at Ainscoughs try. Look where the pass is made from and where he collects the ball in his hands.

I Didn't say they were 50/50, I said I agreed with the Ainscough one & I Disagreed with the Hock one!
IN MY OPINION! Not Fact, Just Opinion!

PS

I Thought that Peacock's was 50/50, It was given, we get on with it!

Flat on his face behind where the ball lands?????

I thought that Peacocks was 50/50 at the time too. But does not the rules state that if you can not categorically see that a try was notscored legitamittly, that you give benefit of doubt? Therefore try rightfully awarded.

You are still wrong on the Hock one, and you cant admit it. It is not opinion that the ref was correct or wrong, it is FACT. Read the rules and you will see that it was correct, which makes it FACT.

Yes, you dissagreeign is opiniion, but that does not change the fact that the try was rightfully dissallowed.

And watch the Ainscough try again.

Which one???
The one were he was in front of the kicker and it was disallowed??? If So I agree, What more do you want???

No the one given.

You are correct that try's are given that involve some obstruction, and right to query that.

But you are wrong on the context of the one on Friday. The defender did not pick out the wrong man and tackle him. He was prevented quite clearly from making the tackle on the correct attacker because O'Loughlin was stood still in the way. That is an obstruction. Read the rules (which you admit you have not looked at recently) and you will see that if O'Loughlin had have kept on moving through the line, that try would not have been dissallowed. But because he stopped and impeded the defender from effecting a tackle, he was breaking the rules. Therfore in relation to the rules we are back to Fact again.

I have not seen any potential obstruction try awarded that is as clear as that one on Friday.