Mateo try?

ImageImageImage
Kickoff: 7:30pm
Venue: Leichhardt Oval
Telecast: FoxSports2 LIVE

Did the ref stuff up

Yes
45
90%
No
5
10%
 
Total votes: 50

User avatar
mrbates78
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri 15 Jan, 2010 12:11 am

Re: Mateo try?

Post by mrbates78 » Tue 22 Mar, 2011 12:03 am

my opinion - it was a try, but i recall the warriors got a dodgy penalty to get them down our end in the 1st place, so i remember thinking at the time justice was served. also, im happy with the rhino no try decision, and i'll give inu the BOTD


you know who
Member
Member
Posts: 670
Joined: Thu 03 Mar, 2011 1:58 pm
Location: Western Suburbs

Post by you know who » Tue 22 Mar, 2011 3:24 pm

NRL referees boss Bill Harrigan has admitted that a controversial disallowed try to Warriors forward Feleti Mateo should have been awarded but wants whistleblowers to continue backing their own judgment.

Harrigan said that Alan Shortall should have referred the decision on Saturday night to video referee Chris Ward before ruling that Wests Tigers centre Blake Ayshford had grounded the ball in his in-goal in the 14th minute before it came loose and Mateo dived on the scraps.

At the time, the momentum was with the Warriors, who went on to lose the Leichhardt Oval match 20-12, and coach Ivan Cleary later questioned the call.

Advertisement: Story continues below After reviewing the incident, Harrigan agreed that the ball had rolled away before Ayshford planted it but backed Shortall for being decisive.

''He's got it wrong, he didn't ground it,'' Harrigan said. ''But I go back to my instructions to them first off: refereeing is all about confidence, and confidence is making decisions.

''So if you put yourself in the perfect position, and you're 100 per cent certain it's a try or a no try, make the decision.

''What I didn't want to see from the guys is don't be drawing the square to send it up when in your mind you know that it's going to be a green or a red light.''

Harrigan said Shorthall would still be asked to explain how he came to his decision.

''I'll be saying to the referee, 'Mate, what were your thoughts?''' Harrigan added. ''And obviously he's going to say to me, 'I was 100 per cent certain Bill.' And I'm going to say, 'Good, you've made the decision. It was wrong. We've got to live with it.' But I applaud him for being in the right spot.''

The Tigers surged home to win without forwards Bryce Gibbs, Gareth Ellis and Liam Fulton, and coach Tim Sheens hopes all will be available for Saturday night's clash with Canberra at Campbelltown Stadium.

The Raiders are also sweating on the fitness of Test prop David Shillington, who will undergo scans today for a calf injury sustained in Friday night's 20-4 loss to Brisbane, while Brett White returns from suspension and star fullback Josh Dugan (calf) is finally expected to make his first appearance of the season.

User avatar
innsaneink
Member
Member
Posts: 29250
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 9:49 pm
Location: ...ahead of you....

Post by innsaneink » Tue 22 Mar, 2011 4:08 pm

tiger4ever wrote:I dont believe some of you guys refs make mistakes that can turn a game all the time whether its a try or a crucial penalty so whats the problem.

You guys whinge when we lose and when we win you look for reasons why we could have lost.

Get over it the final score was 20-12 thats that.

The tigs have got rorted plenty of times so whats the problem.

Utai first try that was picked up as a forward pass but i was inline with that and it was line ball....A try if you ask me
Whats the matter mate?
Cant you discuss aspects of the game you just watched, or do you only like to discuss things that are favourable to your team?
Open your eyes!
Or just keep pretending some things dont happen

I started this thread as an experiment so to speak, I expected a lot of biased posts from posters with tiger goggles firmly fixed....pleased to be surprised and say the majority here are even, level headed and call a spade a spade....and can discuss the game rationally and adult like

User avatar
tiger4ever
Member
Member
Posts: 1552
Joined: Thu 30 Jul, 2009 1:07 pm
Location: BLACKTOWN

Post by tiger4ever » Tue 22 Mar, 2011 8:14 pm

innsaneink wrote:
tiger4ever wrote:I dont believe some of you guys refs make mistakes that can turn a game all the time whether its a try or a crucial penalty so whats the problem.

You guys whinge when we lose and when we win you look for reasons why we could have lost.

Get over it the final score was 20-12 thats that.

The tigs have got rorted plenty of times so whats the problem.

Utai first try that was picked up as a forward pass but i was inline with that and it was line ball....A try if you ask me
Whats the matter mate?
Cant you discuss aspects of the game you just watched, or do you only like to discuss things that are favourable to your team?
Open your eyes!
Or just keep pretending some things dont happen

I started this thread as an experiment so to speak, I expected a lot of biased posts from posters with tiger goggles firmly fixed....pleased to be surprised and say the majority here are even, level headed and call a spade a spade....and can discuss the game rationally and adult like




Lol good one..... ink ok it was a try when i seen it on slow motion but not at the ground where i was.

Some things do happen thats my point ink and what im saying is we got 1 that went our way for a change so whats the big deal its not the blunder of the century is it.

My apologies for you taking it personally.lol

User avatar
innsaneink
Member
Member
Posts: 29250
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 9:49 pm
Location: ...ahead of you....

Post by innsaneink » Tue 22 Mar, 2011 8:48 pm

Never said it was the blunder of the century....still a pretty big blunder, couldve changed the game.
Im not talking reasons...talking facts about the game
Why so defensive....and Ive no idea why you think its personal...Ive only just noticed you in the wests/balmain thread
Thats quite a defeatist attitude to suggest because weve copped wrong calls before its OK now....you seem happy as long as it goes your way?
I then take it you'd be screeaming blue murder if the shoe was on the other foot.
As I thought.


redemption
Member
Member
Posts: 1475
Joined: Wed 26 May, 2010 3:24 am

Post by redemption » Tue 22 Mar, 2011 8:55 pm

mike wrote:
redemption wrote:
mike wrote:
happy tiger wrote: well we have 3 mistakes in 2 rounds so far lets see how many they would get wrong if we get rid of video refs altogether as you said . Mike if we get rid of video refs can we still use video evidence to incriminate players for illegal things ie spear tackles high tackles gouging biting etc What is so wrong about trying to get the decision right 99.5 out of 100 when it is so easy to do so If there are mistakes it is usually from bad camera angles
I never said get rid of the video refs, I said I like the current 2011 practice. That is only going up to the video ref when the ref on the field is not 100% sure of the call. In previous years the refs on the field have been using the video ref as a crutch, too afraid to make a decision. I like the spontaneity so far of 2011 season. We are not going endlessly up to the video ref and having to watch 8 replays just to make a call and even then not always getting it right.

I repeat I like the current 2011 practice and if there is an occasional error from the ref on the field making a decision then I can live with that.

Harrigan was always 100% confident - even when he was 100% WRONG!!!

If technology works they should use it!!!
But the technology doesn't work 100% of the time. In the end the decision is still made by a human and even with the help of all the technology they can still get it wrong.
Of course human error will occur - but the fact remains that technology has the potential to significantly reduce the margin of error!!!!!!

Harrigan (in the video box) still states he was right about Hayne touching the line in THAT Origin game!! So it will never help an egotistic moron like him!

But this technology does have the capacity to bring other arrogant pig-headed refs into line & build better performances!!!

User avatar
innsaneink
Member
Member
Posts: 29250
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 9:49 pm
Location: ...ahead of you....

Post by innsaneink » Tue 22 Mar, 2011 9:02 pm

The Hayne Origin incident comes down to opinion, there was no clear conclusive video evidence supporting either argument, the ground level and camera angle combined with how close it really mustve been all create questions still to this day

redemption
Member
Member
Posts: 1475
Joined: Wed 26 May, 2010 3:24 am

Post by redemption » Tue 22 Mar, 2011 9:14 pm

innsaneink wrote:The Hayne Origin incident comes down to opinion, there was no clear conclusive video evidence supporting either argument, the ground level and camera angle combined with how close it really mustve been all create questions still to this day
And the rules state if inconclusive then "benefit of the doubt" should apply!!! Correct????

But Harrigan still says he was 100% certain - because he is a self-righteous tosser!!!

User avatar
innsaneink
Member
Member
Posts: 29250
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 9:49 pm
Location: ...ahead of you....

Post by innsaneink » Tue 22 Mar, 2011 9:16 pm

Dont think that applies to the touchline, tho happy to be corrected...thought it was only grounding.

redemption
Member
Member
Posts: 1475
Joined: Wed 26 May, 2010 3:24 am

Post by redemption » Tue 22 Mar, 2011 9:21 pm

innsaneink wrote:Dont think that applies to the touchline, tho happy to be corrected...thought it was only grounding.
It applies to everything but forward passes when they are the matter which is referred!

You surely have seen possible knock-ons - off-sides etc referred - & the same rule applies!

If inconclusive it is either benefit of doubt - or refs call - & "Hollywood" was never going to give it back to the man in the middle (note no touchie put up his flag)!!!

So I am glad you are happy to be corrected - because you just have been!!

User avatar
innsaneink
Member
Member
Posts: 29250
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 9:49 pm
Location: ...ahead of you....

Post by innsaneink » Tue 22 Mar, 2011 9:33 pm

Thanks red...happy to be corrected by an expert.
Clear Harrigan thought otherwise....just like the ref in our game the other night.
Doesnt make them tossers, just human.

User avatar
tiger4ever
Member
Member
Posts: 1552
Joined: Thu 30 Jul, 2009 1:07 pm
Location: BLACKTOWN

Post by tiger4ever » Tue 22 Mar, 2011 9:38 pm

innsaneink wrote:Never said it was the blunder of the century....still a pretty big blunder, couldve changed the game.
Im not talking reasons...talking facts about the game
Why so defensive....and Ive no idea why you think its personal...Ive only just noticed you in the wests/balmain thread
Thats quite a defeatist attitude to suggest because weve copped wrong calls before its OK now....you seem happy as long as it goes your way?
I then take it you'd be screeaming blue murder if the shoe was on the other foot.
As I thought.



Yes i do get upset if a obvious call goes against us dont we all..

Unlike you im saying the refs will make mistakes and we got 1 going our way but it wont happen all the time i realise that.

so tell my why out of all the post you singled out mine for your attention.

It was just a comment i made not directed at anyone in particular.

Anyway i said it was a try i voted yes.

redemption
Member
Member
Posts: 1475
Joined: Wed 26 May, 2010 3:24 am

Post by redemption » Tue 22 Mar, 2011 9:39 pm

innsaneink wrote:Thanks red...happy to be corrected by an expert.
Clear Harrigan thought otherwise....just like the ref in our game the other night.
Doesnt make them tossers, just human.
Harrigan thinks he is super-human mate!!!

I don't rate him as a ref or a human being!!

Bug calls Sheens the Fonz for never admitting mistakes - but Harrigan makes the combined/collective egos of Sheens, Russell Crowe, Alan Jones, Ray Hadley & Gus Gould appear humble in comparison!!

User avatar
mike
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 1682
Joined: Mon 28 Jun, 2010 8:32 pm
Location: Hornsby

Post by mike » Wed 23 Mar, 2011 8:36 am

redemption wrote:Of course human error will occur - but the fact remains that technology has the potential to significantly reduce the margin of error!!!!!!

Harrigan (in the video box) still states he was right about Hayne touching the line in THAT Origin game!! So it will never help an egotistic moron like him!

But this technology does have the capacity to bring other arrogant pig-headed refs into line & build better performances!!!
Of course "technology has the potential to significantly reduce the margin of error" unfortunately it is often un-realised potential because there is still a human involved. I just like the current interpretation of not sending everything up to the video ref and waiting for endless number of replays to make a call.
Western Suburbs supporter since 1960 | Balmain junior since 1967 | Wests Tigers supporter since 1999

User avatar
Cultured Bogan
Member
Member
Posts: 17939
Joined: Tue 15 Sep, 2009 11:20 pm
Location: Blue Mountains

Post by Cultured Bogan » Wed 23 Mar, 2011 9:42 am

It was a try any day of the week.

If I was a Warriors supporter I'd be pretty unhappy. Every bad decision needs to be judged on it's merit, it's not as simple as saying "well, we were penalised for this and that so it evened out in the end," because that isn't acceptable.
#penaltyTigers

Cuando llegue el día, y estoy parado a las puertas del cielo, será Dios pidiendo mi perdón...

happy tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 40771
Joined: Sun 27 Feb, 2011 4:49 pm

Post by happy tiger » Wed 23 Mar, 2011 10:12 am

redemption wrote:
innsaneink wrote:Thanks red...happy to be corrected by an expert.
Clear Harrigan thought otherwise....just like the ref in our game the other night.
Doesnt make them tossers, just human.
Harrigan thinks he is super-human mate!!!

I don't rate him as a ref or a human being!!

Bug calls Sheens the Fonz for never admitting mistakes - but Harrigan makes the combined/collective egos of Sheens, Russell Crowe, Alan Jones, Ray Hadley & Gus Gould appear humble in comparison!!
Yes as a Qlder worse one of all of Harrigans mistakes was sending Tallis off for calling him a cheat. Didn't see anyone send Scott Prince off when he said and was picked up on TV mike about ref having "black and gold jocks on "

User avatar
Yossarian
Member
Member
Posts: 9686
Joined: Sat 11 Jul, 2009 7:46 pm
Location: Central Coast

Post by Yossarian » Wed 23 Mar, 2011 10:18 am

redemption wrote:
innsaneink wrote:Thanks red...happy to be corrected by an expert.
Clear Harrigan thought otherwise....just like the ref in our game the other night.
Doesnt make them tossers, just human.
Harrigan thinks he is super-human mate!!!

I don't rate him as a ref or a human being!!

Bug calls Sheens the Fonz for never admitting mistakes - but Harrigan makes the combined/collective egos of Sheens, Russell Crowe, Alan Jones, Ray Hadley & Gus Gould appear humble in comparison!!
I'm pretty much on record as hating Harrigan. I think he is a goose, a clown, and a few other words not suitable for a family forum...

However... I do think he's done a pretty good job so far. I'm certainly all for some of his rule enforcements, particularly guys moving off the mark or playing the ball incorrectly (although they missed a corker from Manly). Also making players take drop outs behind the line - I don't want to see penalties for kicks a couple of cm over the chalk but some players were taking drop outs a metre into the field of play!

Oh and for my 2c worth I thought it was a try. Seemed that he grounded it too but the shots they showed of that weren't conclusive. I understand Shortall made a call at the time and Harrigan encourages that, but he was standing over him. I didn't think he grounded it when I first saw it - I just don't understand how he thought he did...

Post Reply