cherry.pie wrote:In slow motion, it doesn't look like he gets any downward pressure. His little finger appears to make the lightest of contact but the back end of the ball bounces up as he's supposedly exerting downward pressure, which means he hasn't exerted downward pressure at all.
There's no blame attached the ref or video ref. The ref was never going to be able to call that a try at full speed. He did the right thing in referring it to the video ref to check the restart. The video ref wasn't asked to check whether it's a try or no try.
In that situation you'd imagine it's the same scenario as handing it upstairs with the call of 'no try'. With the ref not making the on field call of 'try' the video ref basically has to see if there is any conclusive evidence that 'no try' is the wrong call. He couldn't do that based on the images, it couldn't possibly have been conclusive, so it had to be no try.
Anybody arguin the downward pressure view then has to argue that the Jennings try should have been disallowed too.
You nor I have any idea why the referee referred the incident to the video referee BUT what little we do know based on communication between the two officials was that the match referee signalled I think no try please check. The video referee then replies with no try so your conjecture is WRONG IMO. Likewise if we accept your conjecture that the video referee was only looking at how to restart WHY then spend so long looking for a try. It was obvious from the first replay that the last touch was Hall. YOUR CLEARLY WRONG. Likewise the match referee verbally tells Tomkins the try was not awarded because the ball was rising. YOUR CLEARLY WRONG as was the referee.
RE; NRL rulings. This is IRL not the NRL. To the best of my knowledge nobody has altered the IRL rules, NRL rules do not / should not apply.
Pure conjecture BUT if the score was Australia 30 England 6, the Suttons would have given a try
cherry.pie wrote:My initial reaction at the time was that no try was the correct call. Having seen it again several times since then I still think it was the correct call.
Still images are misleading. It's one of the reasons why I'm not particularly keen on the way video refs use them so much. It's almost impossible to tell exactly when a hand is just about to touch the ball, or is already touching the ball or is just over the ball because the images are always distorted.
In slow motion, it doesn't look like he gets any downward pressure. His little finger appears to make the lightest of contact but the back end of the ball bounces up as he's supposedly exerting downward pressure, which means he hasn't exerted downward pressure at all.
There's no blame attached the ref or video ref. The ref was never going to be able to call that a try at full speed. He did the right thing in referring it to the video ref to check the restart. The video ref wasn't asked to check whether it's a try or no try.
In that situation you'd imagine it's the same scenario as handing it upstairs with the call of 'no try'. With the ref not making the on field call of 'try' the video ref basically has to see if there is any conclusive evidence that 'no try' is the wrong call. He couldn't do that based on the images, it couldn't possibly have been conclusive, so it had to be no try.
I thought halls non reaction said it all :conf:
There is nothing in the rule book stating you have to react hysterically to be given a try. The implications of the desparate excuse offered by Australia would drag this game into the realms of football.
cherry.pie wrote:My initial reaction at the time was that no try was the correct call. Having seen it again several times since then I still think it was the correct call.
Still images are misleading. It's one of the reasons why I'm not particularly keen on the way video refs use them so much. It's almost impossible to tell exactly when a hand is just about to touch the ball, or is already touching the ball or is just over the ball because the images are always distorted.
In slow motion, it doesn't look like he gets any downward pressure. His little finger appears to make the lightest of contact but the back end of the ball bounces up as he's supposedly exerting downward pressure, which means he hasn't exerted downward pressure at all.
There's no blame attached the ref or video ref. The ref was never going to be able to call that a try at full speed. He did the right thing in referring it to the video ref to check the restart. The video ref wasn't asked to check whether it's a try or no try.
In that situation you'd imagine it's the same scenario as handing it upstairs with the call of 'no try'. With the ref not making the on field call of 'try' the video ref basically has to see if there is any conclusive evidence that 'no try' is the wrong call. He couldn't do that based on the images, it couldn't possibly have been conclusive, so it had to be no try.
I thought halls non reaction said it all :conf:
There is nothing in the rule book stating you have to react hysterically to be given a try. The implications of the desparate excuse offered by Australia would drag this game into the realms of football.
we don't want that but if Hall had thought he'd scored I'd have expected a different reaction.
"The referee ruled a goal line drop out to England. After a couple of replays of the incident were shown in the ground and in the video box we ended up with the incident being referred to the VR
I would imagine the VR felt the incident needed further scrutiny and would have called the referee to ask him to refer it to him. The referee would then have decided if he should refer it as a try or no try as that can have a significant impact on the final decision.
Looking at the position of the officials on the pitch were not in a good position to see Hall touch the ball, therefore Gerry Sutton referred it to his brother on the basis that is was no try"
Instead we saw a couple of replays at normal speed that did not help the decision making process.
I think the video referee used those as the basis for his decision not to overrule, rather than the freeze frame shot that he saw of Hall's little finger on the ball.
To complicate matters, the VR then told his brother that the reason for no try was that Hall touched the ball as the ball was rising and therefore it was a 20 metre restart.
I'M SORRY BERNARD BUT YOU GOT THIS ONE WRONG. THE BALL WAS TOUCHED WHILE IT WAS ON THE GROUND AND IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A TRY
"
In my experience of reading Stuart Cummings in League Weekly he is 99.9% correct and ers in favour of match officials heavily.
Downward pressure is a relative term Cherry. A pianist can apply donward pressure upon keys in many different ways, sometimes literally brushing a key with a gentlest touch / pressure just as a RL player can.
It was a try.
The Aussies knew it hence the ludicrous why was Hall not screaming try nonsense.
cherry.pie wrote:And you'll find refs from down under saying the decision was right. They have some very good officials in the NRL too.
Cumming's states Hall got a touch on the ball. The rules don't say you have to get a touch on the ball, they very clearly state you have to get downward pressure, so a little finger on the ball is not conclusive evidence of a try being scored. Downward pressure has always been required.
You can't judge downward pressure from someone's little finger using a still image so a moving image had to be used. Every moving image of the incident suggests there was no downward pressure so the video ref was right to call it as he did. There was no deviation in the movement of the ball - no suggestion that any pressure was applied to it whatsoever. Since it's downward pressure that matters, not just touching the ball, there's no reason to overrule the decision of no try.
i suggest you look at some of the tries that have been given in the NRL in very similiar circumstances
Wigan is and always will be a town of Cherry & White
BUT if the score was Australia 30 England 6, the Suttons would have given a try 
