Jump to content


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

James Robys Try


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#21 saintfrank

saintfrank
  • Coach
  • 311 posts

Posted 22 August 2010 - 08:54 AM

aye but this is saints, so it wasnt, that was wolves,so it was,in the eyes of SOME fans biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif For anyone in outer mongolia, saints are now second tongue.gif tongue.gif tongue.gif
Saints Fan from 47 through good and bad times

#22 deluded pom?

deluded pom?
  • Coach
  • 8,554 posts

Posted 22 August 2010 - 09:29 AM

I've not had a chance to see the incident yet but from what I've read I haven't seen anyone seriously think it WAS a try. By the sound of it there wasn't any doubt about it so how can there be a benefit of something that's not even there? huh.gif

Edited by deluded pom?, 22 August 2010 - 09:29 AM.

rldfsignature.jpg


#23 The Future is League

The Future is League
  • Coach
  • 6,023 posts

Posted 22 August 2010 - 09:39 AM

QUOTE (3owls @ Aug 21 2010, 09:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yes it did cost wire 2nd spot, the game was in the balance up till that decision. As for Roby saying he deserved the benefit of the doubt............yeah course you did you clown.


Saints get the benefit of the doubt most weeks with their forward passes and their short 10 metres. refs seem frightened to penalise them.

#24 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 18,124 posts

Posted 22 August 2010 - 09:43 AM

QUOTE (saintfrank @ Aug 22 2010, 09:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
saints are now second tongue.gif tongue.gif tongue.gif

Behind Wigan. biggrin.gif

Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com
Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007
Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.


#25 Derwent

Derwent
  • Coach
  • 7,942 posts

Posted 22 August 2010 - 09:51 AM

I didn't think Roby's effort was a try, but on the flip side I think Emmitt's should have been given under the benefit of the doubt rule as there was no conclusive proof to show he didn't get the ball down. So they evened themselves out in the end.

Workington Town. Then. Now. Always.


#26 thirteenthman

thirteenthman
  • Coach
  • 2,658 posts

Posted 22 August 2010 - 11:36 AM

QUOTE (Derwent @ Aug 22 2010, 10:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I didn't think Roby's effort was a try, but on the flip side I think Emmitt's should have been given under the benefit of the doubt rule as there was no conclusive proof to show he didn't get the ball down. So they evened themselves out in the end.

The Roby decision was disgraceful, but I agreed with the ref on the Emmitt one. I know benefit of the doubt normally goes with the attcking side, but in this case there was no conclusive proof that he had got it down - all you could definately say was the Crusaders man's arm was under the ball. Surely a team should get some reward for good defence.


#27 SheffTiger

SheffTiger
  • Coach
  • 110 posts

Posted 22 August 2010 - 12:27 PM

QUOTE (thirteenthman @ Aug 22 2010, 12:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The Roby decision was disgraceful, but I agreed with the ref on the Emmitt one. I know benefit of the doubt normally goes with the attcking side, but in this case there was no conclusive proof that he had got it down - all you could definately say was the Crusaders man's arm was under the ball. Surely a team should get some reward for good defence.


Agree that defence needs to be rewarded and with no proof of the ball touching the floor it has to be a NO try. cool.gif

#28 dkw

dkw
  • Workington
  • 4,630 posts

Posted 22 August 2010 - 12:41 PM

QUOTE (SheffTiger @ Aug 22 2010, 01:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Agree that defence needs to be rewarded and with no proof of the ball touching the floor it has to be a NO try. cool.gif

Is that the rule though, I thought the rules were benefit of the doubt would go to the attacking side?

#29 thirteenthman

thirteenthman
  • Coach
  • 2,658 posts

Posted 22 August 2010 - 07:00 PM

QUOTE (dkw @ Aug 22 2010, 01:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Is that the rule though, I thought the rules were benefit of the doubt would go to the attacking side?

Correct. Doesn't make it right though.


#30 getdownmonkeyman

getdownmonkeyman
  • Coach
  • 1,768 posts

Posted 22 August 2010 - 08:07 PM

When situations like this arise, it does the game as a whole as puts the integrity of RL on a very iffy footing.

#31 Simon Templar

Simon Templar
  • Coach
  • 408 posts

Posted 23 August 2010 - 09:39 PM

I wonder how many more contentious VR decisions we have yet to witness before the seasons' out. I notice Wire fans crying over Roby's try, yet they are strangely quiet about Westwoods double movement on Friday night.
AFAIC the Vref is a blight on our game. It creates an un-level playing field - no pun intended - because it isnt available for every game played on a weekend, therefore can have an adverse affect on results and the SL table.
For me we should either all have it ,or nobody has it.

Refs are full time nowadays. They should earn their corn and make a decision.

#32 deluded pom?

deluded pom?
  • Coach
  • 8,554 posts

Posted 24 August 2010 - 09:31 AM

QUOTE (saintfrank @ Aug 21 2010, 10:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
..like when a Bevan , NON TRY,knocked saints out of a semi a few years back.



Was that John or Brian? wink.gif

rldfsignature.jpg


#33 clement

clement
  • Coach
  • 567 posts

Posted 24 August 2010 - 10:46 AM

QUOTE (KNIGHTS2009 @ Aug 21 2010, 08:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
That surely has to be one of the worst video ref decisions ever by Ian Smith there.
No chance that was a try.
don't know about anyone else but as soon as it occurred i thought no try he's knocked on.could not understand why the video ref had to look at it a few times and still came up with a try.BAFFLED TOTALLY.


#34 petero

petero
  • Coach
  • 2,833 posts

Posted 24 August 2010 - 01:55 PM

Shaun McRae made the obvious comment when he argued with Phil Clarke's support of the decision being right.
He stated: if that had occurred in mid-field then the ref having seen it he would have ruled a Knock-on , he would so too and rightly so.

That was a terrible decision and totally ruined for me what was at that stage a very well contested match.

#35 thirteenthman

thirteenthman
  • Coach
  • 2,658 posts

Posted 25 August 2010 - 08:37 AM

QUOTE (petero @ Aug 24 2010, 02:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Shaun McRae made the obvious comment when he argued with Phil Clarke's support of the decision being right.
He stated: if that had occurred in mid-field then the ref having seen it he would have ruled a Knock-on , he would so too and rightly so.

That was a terrible decision and totally ruined for me what was at that stage a very well contested match.

Spot on. I've never understood why different rules seem to apply just because it's in the in-goal area.


#36 BarrieJ

BarrieJ
  • Players
  • 12 posts

Posted 25 August 2010 - 09:09 AM

QUOTE (thirteenthman @ Aug 25 2010, 09:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Spot on. I've never understood why different rules seem to apply just because it's in the in-goal area.

If a ball is loose on the field and a player dives on it and puts his hand down on it and rolls it forward with his hand and arm (but staying in contact) is that a knock on?

What if it happens in the in goal area - is that a try?

Or does it all depend on which team does it and which team you are supporting? wink.gif


#37 petero

petero
  • Coach
  • 2,833 posts

Posted 25 August 2010 - 06:46 PM

QUOTE (BarrieJ @ Aug 25 2010, 10:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If a ball is loose on the field and a player dives on it and puts his hand down on it and rolls it forward with his hand and arm (but staying in contact) is that a knock on?

What if it happens in the in goal area - is that a try?

Or does it all depend on which team does it and which team you are supporting? wink.gif


Look in the mirror pal and you will soon see who is the one being selective.

I am a total neutral in this matter but I know when someone has been awarded a try that never should have been, Roby was given just that. As for who it is who's getting away with the stupidity well answer me this.

Saints in the play-offs are beaten by an identical given try when as with this one, it is blatantly not one, how supportive will you be then of the VRs decision?

#38 Loiner

Loiner
  • Coach
  • 314 posts

Posted 25 August 2010 - 09:17 PM

QUOTE (dreamcatcher37 @ Aug 21 2010, 09:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Absolute disgrace!

And guess what the dimwit is the video ref in the cup final. ohmy.gif

#39 Saint Toppy

Saint Toppy
  • Coach
  • 2,649 posts

Posted 26 August 2010 - 06:56 AM

For the record I think the VR got both decisions wrong for Saints, Roby's was a no try and Emmetts was a try (Benefit of doubt), But incidents like this just go to show that even with technology mistakes can be made.
Go back a month to the Leeds V Saints game, the VF spent 2 minutes looking at the Danny McGuire 'knock on' and yet still gave the try but when Jon Wells did his analysis for Boots N All on the wednesday he zoomed in on the play and it clearly showed McGuire touched it.

VR 's have to make decisions and its inevitable that they will get a couple wrong.

#40 thirteenthman

thirteenthman
  • Coach
  • 2,658 posts

Posted 26 August 2010 - 09:03 AM

QUOTE (BarrieJ @ Aug 25 2010, 10:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If a ball is loose on the field and a player dives on it and puts his hand down on it and rolls it forward with his hand and arm (but staying in contact) is that a knock on?

What if it happens in the in goal area - is that a try?

Or does it all depend on which team does it and which team you are supporting? wink.gif

I would question whether his hand did stay in contact with the ball in this case.

Believe it or not, some of us are capable of forming opinions which are not based on club loyalties.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users