Try by Alex Glenn

Kickoff: 7:30pm
Venue: Sydney Football Stadium
Telecast: Ch9
User avatar
Posts: 1552
Joined: Thu 30 Jul, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: Try by Alex Glenn

Post by tiger4ever » Sun 24 Apr, 2011 5:44 pm

I dont think glenn thought it was a try he was hanging around waiting to play the ball.That says it all


Post by soupyy » Sun 24 Apr, 2011 6:59 pm

On game analyser you can hear the commentators talking up the player responses, at the game it looked like both teams thought it was no-try, I think that behind the goals angle is deceptive, guess it was 50/50 but it felt like we lost all the 50/50 calls

Posted using RoarFEED

Posts: 320
Joined: Thu 16 Jul, 2009 10:55 am
Location: Mount Larcom. Central Queensland.

Post by norm » Sun 24 Apr, 2011 7:17 pm

I thought it was no try, but that didn't cost us the game, that was due to our extremely poor attitude and decision making ability in defence.

User avatar
Posts: 2876
Joined: Sat 11 Jul, 2009 11:35 pm
Location: Mount Pritchard

Post by Peaches » Sun 24 Apr, 2011 7:22 pm

I think benefit of the doubt should go with what you are trying to see. For example, if you think he hasn't scored and can't see an angle where he has, you call it no-try. If you think he has scored and you can't get a definite option on an error, its a try. This benefit of doubt going to one side has given and will continue to given stupid results. It needs to be more flexible. If you have no opinion based on evidence, its a no-try.

User avatar
Posts: 2509
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 10:40 am

Post by TIGER » Mon 25 Apr, 2011 8:38 pm

southerntiger wrote:In my view, admittedly biased, he was well short when he grounded it. One angle showed that he was close bit was deceptive because of the angle. Definite no try for mine.
Exactly as i saw it, no evidence the ball touched the line especially at the angle shown.

Posted using RoarFEED

happy tiger
Posts: 37147
Joined: Sun 27 Feb, 2011 4:49 pm

Post by happy tiger » Mon 25 Apr, 2011 8:42 pm

tiger4ever wrote:I dont think glenn thought it was a try he was hanging around waiting to play the ball.That says it all
Thats normal though Tiger4ever . There was only going to be two logical conclusions . Try or play the ball on the 10 metre line . No use running 90 metres down field have it ruled no try and then come all the way back

User avatar
Posts: 2576
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 9:15 am

Post by Juro » Wed 27 Apr, 2011 2:50 pm

I thought it was close enough to give it as benefit of the doubt. Did they only have 2 camera angles to judge it on? One was absolutely useless and the other was inconclusive. A higher angle looking down may have shown it clearly...
I've been a member since 2012. We last played finals football in 2011. Just saying...

Post Reply