The Commentators

[AmericanHistoryX]

How soft have they become? Also are they communicating directly with the Bunker indirectly? Like. We all know its a try... commentator.. well is that a try? Political correction stuff? So when is it a try when it not a try and when is not a try but they say try? Sorry guys. You see a win.. I see a bigger win we didn't get....

 

[Lauren]

I like Warren Smith the best. He never shows bias and will always mention a referee's or the bunker's decision, when it's questionable.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

Yes. A try is a try. How many Canberra's try's were not tries? Fainu's try was a try - but where is the evidence for Levi's try their hooker? Its a farce!!!!!

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

The point being... commentators not calling a spade a spade... as if they are the bunker.....

 

[rah53]

As a fan of the NFL & seeing how their reviews are done, there 3 outcomes by the video review. The referees decision is confirm, overturned or the call stands, meaning there is inconclusive evidence to confirm or overturn the decision & therefore goes to the onfield decision by the refs. The NRL has adopted a similar system to the NFL's.

In the case of Fainu's try, the onfield decision was no try & there was no clear proof of the ball touching the ground. You can't ruled on speculation & say "surely he got that down". It has to be clear proof.

In the case of Canberra's try, the ref's onfield decision was try, and there was no evidence to say it was held up or confirm that it touched the ground, so the review went with the onfield decision of try.

Me personally, I was happy with both reviews.

Now, in saying that, the NRL bunker overall is very inconsistent & decisions made are subjective from 1 ref to another.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

But they are consistent in their inconstancy.

 

[lathami]

As a fan of the NFL & seeing how their reviews are done, there 3 outcomes by the video review. The referees decision is confirm, overturned or the call stands, meaning there is inconclusive evidence to confirm or overturn the decision & therefore goes to the onfield decision by the refs. The NRL has adopted a similar system to the NFL's.

In the case of Fainu's try, the onfield decision was no try & there was no clear proof of the ball touching the ground. You can't ruled on speculation & say "surely he got that down". It has to be clear proof.

In the case of Canberra's try, the ref's onfield decision was try, and there was no evidence to say it was held up or confirm that it touched the ground, so the review went with the onfield decision of try.

Me personally, I was happy with both reviews.

Now, in saying that, the NRL bunker overall is very inconsistent & decisions made are subjective from 1 ref to another.

Yeah, nah!
Fainus try was a try no doubt. U can see when he lifted his arm if the ground by about 50mm and the ball was poking out below where his arm was when it came of the ground. It was obvious and they have ruled them as tries plenty of times before. Just not for us

 

[BAGNF05]

As a fan of the NFL & seeing how their reviews are done, there 3 outcomes by the video review. The referees decision is confirm, overturned or the call stands, meaning there is inconclusive evidence to confirm or overturn the decision & therefore goes to the onfield decision by the refs. The NRL has adopted a similar system to the NFL's.

In the case of Fainu's try, the onfield decision was no try & there was no clear proof of the ball touching the ground. You can't ruled on speculation & say "surely he got that down". It has to be clear proof.

In the case of Canberra's try, the ref's onfield decision was try, and there was no evidence to say it was held up or confirm that it touched the ground, so the review went with the onfield decision of try.

Me personally, I was happy with both reviews.

Now, in saying that, the NRL bunker overall is very inconsistent & decisions made are subjective from 1 ref to another.

You’re probably right but the vibe was very Wests Tigers

 

[rah53]

Yeah, nah!
Fainus try was a try no doubt. U can see when he lifted his arm if the ground by about 50mm and the ball was poking out below where his arm was when it came of the ground. It was obvious and they have ruled them as tries plenty of times before. Just not for us

Glad you're not a video ref. There was no footage of the ball on the ground, the ball was hidden by his arm, so I'll say it again, you can't speculate. There has to be clear conclusive footage.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

Same for Canberra's first try! That's the thing...

 

[rah53]

You’re probably right but the vibe was very Wests Tigers

In years past, the Tigers would've got the bum steer, especially from Gerard Sutton. But he's been quite good with the Tigers this year. Not sure if it's because the club hire him in the preseason to help with rules management.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

With the exception of Smith and Voss, they are terrible. I know a lot of people can’t stand Voss, and i understand why, but I think he’s alright. Ginane is the worst. Mr hyperbole. And when it’s a trio of him, Ennis and Blocker, forget about it.

 

[BAGNF05]

In years past, the Tigers would've got the bum steer, especially from Gerard Sutton. But he's been quite good with the Tigers this year. Not sure if it's because the club hire him in the preseason to help with rules management.

Not sure why they couldn’t pick up a forward pass out of dummy half yesterday. We should have won by a lot more. The sin binning was harsh too given the ref had no idea what was going on.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

I like Ginnane the best out of all of them .. Man.. I have problems..... I need a Hankook tyre...

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

Not sure why they couldn’t pick up a forward pass out of dummy half yesterday. We should have won by a lot more. The sin binning was harsh too given the ref had no idea what was going on.

Yeh right... lets give Canberra a chance.... I bet on them... bustards, we'll start with their first try that no one saw...

 

[Todd Packer]

I still don't get why Seyfarth was sin binned.
He was called out of the play and pulled back his arms to let the Canberra player run past him. How does that become a professional foul?

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

I still don't get why Seyfarth was sin binned.
He was called out of the play and pulled back his arms to let the Canberra player run past him. How does that become a professional foul?

Exactly. WTF was that shit??? And again. Canberra's first try with no evidence, no footage.. Anyway.. we dod well. Just have to be weary moving forward. Maybe the punters have us winning 3 wooden spoons in a row. A 3peat...

 

[Stevec]

As a fan of the NFL & seeing how their reviews are done, there 3 outcomes by the video review. The referees decision is confirm, overturned or the call stands, meaning there is inconclusive evidence to confirm or overturn the decision & therefore goes to the onfield decision by the refs. The NRL has adopted a similar system to the NFL's.

In the case of Fainu's try, the onfield decision was no try & there was no clear proof of the ball touching the ground. You can't ruled on speculation & say "surely he got that down". It has to be clear proof.

In the case of Canberra's try, the ref's onfield decision was try, and there was no evidence to say it was held up or confirm that it touched the ground, so the review went with the onfield decision of try.

Me personally, I was happy with both reviews.

Now, in saying that, the NRL bunker overall is very inconsistent & decisions made are subjective from 1 ref to another.

Watch the replay .with Fainu try cronk said ref had perfect view .He did not he was on other side of the players involved and had no view . My view was both were trys

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

I dont care what Cronk says. God gave me 2 eyes also.

 

[lathami]

Glad you're not a video ref. There was no footage of the ball on the ground, the ball was hidden by his arm, so I'll say it again, you can't speculate. There has to be clear conclusive footage.

Most commentators saw it the same way. No real difference to the Levi try where there was no clear video, just the peanut was in a better view. It was exactly the same they were both tries, it was obvious. But cool hide behind your technicalities, all good!