PB is right Unfortuantely.

Once it goes to the VR, discretion and common sense goes out of the window and they have to apply the laws of the game which means that unless their was clear proof that the try should not be given then the VR has to award the try.


The only person who could give discretion would have been Ganson who i think had doubt about the try and was hoping that the VR would have a better view and would rule it out. Unfortunately the VR had no better view and had to give it as per the rukles.

I guarantee that if you spoke to ganson add Silverwood now they would have preferred to rule the try out

Ponner you are going too far now

Why would they rule the try out now? Nothing new has happened since the try was awarded. They had enough chances to look at the replays before giving the try so their opinion shouldn't be any different now to what it was then. Can't fault Ganson for going to the video ref but Silverfish needs his old peepers checking.

Lets just agree that the VR concept has utterly and totally failed and should be scrapped.

There is a reason that even the NFL got rid of the idea.

You didnt say that saturday night

Because now he can say i have discretion to give a view ( because the game is over he is not bound by the same rule) where as on friday he did not You need to go back and read PB and my posts as you do not understand why he does not have the discretion to rule a try out.

When it goes to the VR he has to be certain to rule the try out out otherwise it has to be benefit of the doubt.

can you say with 100% certainty that the ball was ripped or only 99% certainty.


I can say from the factual evidence i cannot be certain it was ripped

it is the same difference as convicting someone in court with cold clear evidence as oppose to convicting someone on circumstantial evidence.

No they wouldnt

Hadn't had chance to review it on TV until Monday.

Of course not. Refs never make mistakes. Especially not Video Refs.

Are you saying Siverwood would have awarded that try if he had discretion

I have no idea. Its ifs and buts.

I'm saying Silverwood got the decision correct given the protocol he has to follow

And i am agreeing with you.

See, Refs cant even get an argument right

why wasnt it pulled up by ganson for dragging grix back behind the line? i thought when out player became involved the tackle is complete? (think mcgillvary was there, and cudjoe)

happens alot with players getting dragged into touch too??

Guess who our speaker is at April's Supporters Association meeting?







Don't come like this





!

ok then -------------

Just to make your day Brearley.......

Where a player comes in to support his team mate who is in possession and is being pushed back he will only be deemed as lending weight if he is in a pushing position and the ball carrier is losing ground. A player merely “joining in” will not be deemed to be lending weight and held will not be called if the ball carrier is about to enter touch or the in goal area.

You are silverwood I claim my £5



See you sunday!

definition, "No Try".

I said at the game to Meast, Daz etc that I though it was no try based on the above (lending weight).

As soon as it went to the VR I knew it would be given.

Slightly o/t but where we meeting?

Dont lie !!

Judging by this thread i'd say the blind school

Should we start up a new sticky

The make PB Giant accountable for all reffing decisions thread

Jeez it would be the busiest thread on RLFans