Ruling of try

[Elderslie_Tiger]

Has anyone figured out what happen after the missed field goal by Reynolds it missed clearly what was there to refer rules on the run. Just thinking what would of happen if Brooks slowed down a got tackled and WT'S scored on the next play no referral

 

[Sabre]

I was confused about the Garner no try right on half-time. Surely that was a one on one strip?

 

[mike]

I was confused about the Garner no try right on half-time. Surely that was a one on one strip?

Worse case the ref called held before the strip. Bring it back and let South’s play the ball I say.

 

[Swordy]

Whilst the end result was right, Sutton stuffed up in awarding a tigers try at the end.

When Brooks placed it down, it should have been time off, then straight to the bunker to review.....not award a try and then go to the bunker.

It just proves under pressure, he got lost.

 

[izotope]

This thread is grasping at straws

 

[Yossarian]

I have no objection to how he handled that sequence. Doubtful put down from Burgess, clean possession from Brooks.

I’m not 100% sold on the put down from Burgess but the days of downward pressure and control seem to have gone. I don’t it was a shocker though.

 

[hsvjones]

I’m not really complaining, more so interested.

The ref ruled try for Brooks. Didn’t go to bunker.

The ref didn’t ask for anything to be reviewed, let alone the Burgess’ try.

How can the bunker call it a try?

You must of missed the memo ... Any try scored against Souths needs to be check as far back as possible to assist them in winning.

On a serious note through I did hear the So called Ref himself ask the bunker to check it after he awarded it.

 

[BZN]

I don't get why we're always the team of records and firsts. Most team have some record against us, we have the longest finals free run, longest to have a million points a game scored against us etc. Now Tom Burgess actually holds onto the ball for the first time ever.

:joy_cat: :joy_cat: :joy_cat:

 

[hobbo1]

I have no objection to how he handled that sequence. Doubtful put down from Burgess, clean possession from Brooks.

I’m not 100% sold on the put down from Burgess but the days of downward pressure and control seem to have gone. I don’t it was a shocker though.

At normal speed and without frame by frame video replays..it’s a no-try

 

[BZN]

Yep, all above board.

Ref was about to blow no try and refer to Bunker before Brooksy took off. Even if Brooks didn't score on the other side, the ref would've come back for the try, he was only going to pay advantage for one play.

As for the try itself, I actually think he lost control and never re-gained it properly if you look in full speed. He has contact with the ball in slow mo but not control. Keeping in mind, ref had ruled a no try as well.. I don't think there was conclusive evidence that he remained in control of it.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

He was going to the bunker for the Burgess pit down originally then saw Brooks taking off. I thought he just went back to that. Souths were out of challenges

This. He was about to blow his whistle, to check the Burgess try ( think Sutton felt no try), so when he saw Brooks take off he let him go as he new he could go back and check the Burgess try/no try as it was in the same play (ie where Brooks got the ball from). I actually liked how Sutton reffed that. Otherwise he would of stopped Brooks to check on the Burgess try, and if he had dropped it, we would of had a restart on the 20.

Yep, if Burgess spilled it he let it run for us to win it.

 

[Tigercrb]

Whilst the end result was right, Sutton stuffed up in awarding a tigers try at the end.

When Brooks placed it down, it should have been time off, then straight to the bunker to review.....not award a try and then go to the bunker.

It just proves under pressure, he got lost.

Not really. He has to make an onfield decision before going to the bunker.
If he thought Burgess lost it, the play is still "live". Therefore he awarded the try to Brooks.

It would have been much worse if he called time off as soon as he "thought" Burgess lost it. If Burgess had of dropped it, he would have then robbed Brooks of the match winning try.

It doesn't matter, every try is now checked and cleared by the bunker weather the ref sends it to the bunker or not. Eg, the Alex Johnson try.

If brooks stopped short of the line, he would have called time off and sent it to bunker as a no try.

This sequence was actually reffed very well and I think many other refs would have blown time off before giving Brooks the chance to run off.

 

[Tigercrb]

He was going to the bunker for the Burgess pit down originally then saw Brooks taking off. I thought he just went back to that. Souths were out of challenges

This. He was about to blow his whistle, to check the Burgess try ( think Sutton felt no try), so when he saw Brooks take off he let him go as he new he could go back and check the Burgess try/no try as it was in the same play (ie where Brooks got the ball from). I actually liked how Sutton reffed that. Otherwise he would of stopped Brooks to check on the Burgess try, and if he had dropped it, we would of had a restart on the 20.

Yep, if Burgess spilled it he let it run for us to win it.

Exactly. Imagine it was dropped and we got a 7 tackle set instead of the match winning try?

Now that would be pandemonium on here.

 

[rustycage]

Ref called play on after Burgess loses ball. Brooks runs 100m and scores. A try is awarded to Brooks. If anything, the bunker should have reviewed and awarded no try to tigers as Souths were deemed to have knocked on by the referee. Souths were out of challenges. Or maybe it's just another case of making up rules on the run that affect the tigers. Any other time, (correct me if I'm wrong) a ref calls knock on and the only way it's overturned is when the ref suggests the team affected to challenge the decision and the challenge is proven correct by the bunker.

 

[Alex Seyfarth's #1 Fan]

I was at my parent's house earlier when the sports news was on. This try was shown and both of them said "no try, he lost it" without knowing any of the game's context. Just thought I'd add that to the conversation.

 

[mike]

Ref called play on after Burgess loses ball. Brooks runs 100m and scores. A try is awarded to Brooks. If anything, the bunker should have reviewed and awarded no try to tigers as Souths were deemed to have knocked on by the referee. Souths were out of challenges. Or maybe it's just another case of making up rules on the run that affect the tigers. Any other time, (correct me if I'm wrong) a ref calls knock on and the only way it's overturned is when the ref suggests the team affected to challenge the decision and the challenge is proven correct by the bunker.

The ref can always ask for a review by the bunker. Doesn’t have to be a Captain’s challenge if the ref is unsure. The ref didn’t actually call the knock-on either. Of all the poor decisions he made that night this wasn’t one of them. The ref actually handled it very well.

Even though it didn’t go our way good on Brooks for doing that, it was quick thinking on his part and if Burgess had dropped the ball we would have won. More of that please.

 

[The_Patriot]

Brooks is a fantastic player when the game is already over

 

[mike]

Brooks is a fantastic player when the game is already over

That’s just plain mean.

 

[Honkylips]

Brooks is a fantastic player when the game is already over

That’s just plain mean.

Definately mean. also funny and 100% true.

 

[The_Patriot]

Brooks is a fantastic player when the game is already over

That’s just plain mean.

You are right. It's harsh.

I don't have any more chances to give the guy. Just see him going missing when we 'actually' need him.