Biggest double movement in 20 years

fergiefurr
Member
Member
Posts: 2863
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 1:18 pm

Re: Biggest double movement in 20 years

Post by fergiefurr » Mon 19 Jun, 2017 9:29 am

fair try

but it did go up as no try so whether it should have been turned around i dont know

the type of decision that the good teams get against the s*** teams


Byron Bay Fan
Member
Member
Posts: 4570
Joined: Sat 17 Oct, 2015 2:14 pm

Post by Byron Bay Fan » Mon 19 Jun, 2017 9:51 am

fergiefurr wrote:
Mon 19 Jun, 2017 9:29 am
fair try

but it did go up as no try so whether it should have been turned around i dont know

the type of decision that the good teams get against the s*** teams
I prefer the attacking player gets the benefit of the doubt, like boxers get points for aggression even if punches landed are equal. It makes for a more exciting progressing game. We don't want it like soccer with very low scores.
Malcolm Knox: What has happened this week is a pity for the Tigers, a pity for Jason Taylor and a pity for Robbie Farah, who had achieved more than the Big Four put together but was somehow turned into collateral damage. (SMH 25-26 March, 2017)

ricksen
Member
Member
Posts: 1840
Joined: Fri 17 Jul, 2015 9:10 pm

Post by ricksen » Mon 19 Jun, 2017 10:30 am

stryker wrote:
Sun 18 Jun, 2017 4:56 pm
It was a fair try every day of the past 20 years....
If you want to feel robbed, the forward pass try should be your whinge.
Absolutely - the Townsend pass to Lee went about 5m forward. Wasn't at high speed either, so I've no idea how it wasn't picked up.

Onthebus
Member
Member
Posts: 357
Joined: Sun 23 Apr, 2017 7:33 pm

Post by Onthebus » Mon 19 Jun, 2017 10:58 am

It was a try

I'm more dirty at Sue for throwing a stupid offload when we were in total control and the forward pass to Lee from earlier on in the game

User avatar
jirskyr
Member
Member
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 12:00 pm

Post by jirskyr » Mon 19 Jun, 2017 1:16 pm

maxxy86 wrote:
Mon 19 Jun, 2017 7:51 am
WestsBenTigers wrote:
Mon 19 Jun, 2017 7:43 am
Watching it live, I don't think he grounded the ball
See that's my main gripe that the ball wasn't heading downward but upward. There for not pressure downward. I'm not blaming the award for this try tho we sucked in the last 10 for sure.
I still don't think he grounded it. Once lifts it to go over the line, he collects Brooks' knee and his hand goes to the bottom of the football, where it stays. On the line his arm is on the ground, his hand is on the side bottom quarter of the ball, the footy is on its point and it rolls away to his right, in the direction away from Brooks' leg.

In other words I feel he lost control, his hand goes under the ball and it is ejected across-field without having gone down. If he'd truly grounded it after lifting his arm, it would have bounced out, not rolled along the turf. You try yourself to force a football on grass whilst also making it roll along the ground sideways.

I didn't have much issue with the double-movement aspect, but watching the replay a few times I can see what people are talking about. In real-time he seems to have motion and Brooks helps him over the line rather than holding him back. But I could understand the interpretation that lifting the arm or not, he was still moving forwards and his body ended up at the line.

Probably, and honestly, if the videos refs sent it up as no try, because live I watched the pocket ref and he immediately signalled "no try", I didn't see enough evidence to over-turn the decision. In other words, due to all the conjecture, it looks inconclusive as either double-movement or lost control = doubt = on-field decision stands.

What is it with Tigers getting calls over-turned by the video ref against Sharks?
Capture.JPG
Capture.JPG (57.45 KiB) Viewed 507 times


User avatar
stryker
Member
Member
Posts: 10825
Joined: Sun 19 Jul, 2009 4:16 pm
Location: Cairns

Post by stryker » Mon 19 Jun, 2017 1:37 pm

Common sense was applied. It was a try and those on the field got it wrong so it was over ruled. Simple.

Byron Bay Fan
Member
Member
Posts: 4570
Joined: Sat 17 Oct, 2015 2:14 pm

Post by Byron Bay Fan » Mon 19 Jun, 2017 1:42 pm

The ball comes in contact with the line before Brooks foot reaches it so he still has control of the ball when it rubs against the line, that is generally accepted as a try, not having to be pushed down from top.
Malcolm Knox: What has happened this week is a pity for the Tigers, a pity for Jason Taylor and a pity for Robbie Farah, who had achieved more than the Big Four put together but was somehow turned into collateral damage. (SMH 25-26 March, 2017)

User avatar
jirskyr
Member
Member
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 12:00 pm

Post by jirskyr » Mon 19 Jun, 2017 4:02 pm

stryker wrote:
Mon 19 Jun, 2017 1:37 pm
Common sense was applied. It was a try and those on the field got it wrong so it was over ruled. Simple.
Not so simple if 40 people in here cannot agree on it. So black and white with you.

User avatar
stryker
Member
Member
Posts: 10825
Joined: Sun 19 Jul, 2009 4:16 pm
Location: Cairns

Post by stryker » Mon 19 Jun, 2017 4:16 pm

jirskyr wrote:
Mon 19 Jun, 2017 4:02 pm
stryker wrote:
Mon 19 Jun, 2017 1:37 pm
Common sense was applied. It was a try and those on the field got it wrong so it was over ruled. Simple.
Not so simple if 40 people in here cannot agree on it. So black and white with you.
I looked at it objectively...Capewell lunged and landed short before the defence jumped on him from behind and their combined momentum crossed the tryline where he extremely obviously grounded the ball. That has been a try for over 100 years. Others are looking at it subjectively....those refs hate us, we never get the 50/50 calls, Sharks are a protected species... You can relate to that cant you statman?

User avatar
jirskyr
Member
Member
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 12:00 pm

Post by jirskyr » Mon 19 Jun, 2017 8:12 pm

stryker wrote:
Mon 19 Jun, 2017 4:16 pm
jirskyr wrote:
Mon 19 Jun, 2017 4:02 pm
stryker wrote:
Mon 19 Jun, 2017 1:37 pm
Common sense was applied. It was a try and those on the field got it wrong so it was over ruled. Simple.
Not so simple if 40 people in here cannot agree on it. So black and white with you.
I looked at it objectively...Capewell lunged and landed short before the defence jumped on him from behind and their combined momentum crossed the tryline where he extremely obviously grounded the ball. That has been a try for over 100 years. Others are looking at it subjectively....those refs hate us, we never get the 50/50 calls, Sharks are a protected species... You can relate to that cant you statman?
No I think lots of other people tried to look at it objectively too, myself included. I consider myself a fairly level-headed supporter, just because I don't think it was a try doesn't mean you are more objective than me. Anyone who tries to claim true objectivity when their team is on the field, in my opinion, is kidding themselves.

mtd made the comment that applies for me - how would I have felt if the Tigers were the attacking team and we were denied a try? I would not have been ropable, I could see the ability to deny it. And I can understand what people are saying about awarding it too. That's cool, makes it a 50/50 call in my book, which puts it back to the on-field ref.

They ruled it no try live, and I think double movements are one of those calls where live decisions are actually informative, rather than the nonsense you get when they rock the footage back and forward in slow-mo, did his arm get lifted by an atom or not.

TCL
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 2188
Joined: Mon 29 Aug, 2016 8:52 am

Post by TCL » Mon 19 Jun, 2017 8:29 pm

Brooks helped him across the line, and the pass was way forward. My wife was walking passed at the time and even she called it forward.

formerguest
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 3853
Joined: Fri 07 Jun, 2013 7:33 pm

Post by formerguest » Mon 19 Jun, 2017 8:29 pm

jirskyr wrote:
Mon 19 Jun, 2017 8:12 pm
stryker wrote:
Mon 19 Jun, 2017 4:16 pm
jirskyr wrote:
Mon 19 Jun, 2017 4:02 pm
stryker wrote:
Mon 19 Jun, 2017 1:37 pm
Common sense was applied. It was a try and those on the field got it wrong so it was over ruled. Simple.
Not so simple if 40 people in here cannot agree on it. So black and white with you.
I looked at it objectively...Capewell lunged and landed short before the defence jumped on him from behind and their combined momentum crossed the tryline where he extremely obviously grounded the ball. That has been a try for over 100 years. Others are looking at it subjectively....those refs hate us, we never get the 50/50 calls, Sharks are a protected species... You can relate to that cant you statman?
No I think lots of other people tried to look at it objectively too, myself included. I consider myself a fairly level-headed supporter, just because I don't think it was a try doesn't mean you are more objective than me. Anyone who tries to claim true objectivity when their team is on the field, in my opinion, is kidding themselves.

mtd made the comment that applies for me - how would I have felt if the Tigers were the attacking team and we were denied a try? I would not have been ropable, I could see the ability to deny it. And I can understand what people are saying about awarding it too. That's cool, makes it a 50/50 call in my book, which puts it back to the on-field ref.

They ruled it no try live, and I think double movements are one of those calls where live decisions are actually informative, rather than the nonsense you get when they rock the footage back and forward in slow-mo, did his arm get lifted by an atom or not.
Yeah, I didn't notice it was sent to the bunker as no try, so could cop it even though he lifted his arm, but there was not enough to overturn the decision.

User avatar
innsaneink
Member
Member
Posts: 28428
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 9:49 pm
Location: ...ahead of you....

Post by innsaneink » Mon 19 Jun, 2017 8:36 pm

More important things in life than arguing over an opinion on a footy ruling on the internet....or so I thought...LOL

FTR I was totally unobjective *LIVE*...I was spewin and swearin to tell the truth...but ive become more objective as my anger subsided

User avatar
TripleB
Member
Member
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 4:45 pm

Post by TripleB » Mon 19 Jun, 2017 8:57 pm

I don't see the clear evidence that his arm went forward due to Brooks' leg. It is an assumption as in the front on video Brooks' leg is obscured by Capewell's arm, so to me I don't think it is the clear evidence required to overturn the decision.

voice of reason
Member
Member
Posts: 312
Joined: Sat 09 Aug, 2014 10:35 pm

Post by voice of reason » Mon 19 Jun, 2017 9:07 pm

It was awarded which, at the end of the day, is the only thing that matters.
Suffering supporter since 1967

User avatar
stryker
Member
Member
Posts: 10825
Joined: Sun 19 Jul, 2009 4:16 pm
Location: Cairns

Post by stryker » Mon 19 Jun, 2017 11:26 pm

innsaneink wrote:
Mon 19 Jun, 2017 8:36 pm
More important things in life than arguing over an opinion on a footy ruling on the internet....or so I thought...LOL

FTR I was totally unobjective *LIVE*...I was spewin and swearin to tell the truth...but ive become more objective as my anger subsided
Is that the bit you did see? Hard to tell with you when you are perfectly comfortable commenting on stuff you admit you didnt watch. Good one.

User avatar
innsaneink
Member
Member
Posts: 28428
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 9:49 pm
Location: ...ahead of you....

Post by innsaneink » Tue 20 Jun, 2017 5:42 am

Is that your best?
Seriously?
You really shouldve stuck to the more important things in life...LOL
'Sook" indeed

Post Reply