Another Massive Howler Fm the refs-Sunday Footy

[ROC181]

Without giving the scores or whos it against, the refs made another clanger in the Raiders v Storm game. One coach sure to be making waves post game.

[stephenj]

ill bet it was in favour of the storm?

[rwbfl]

In regard to this game also, how dumb is Gus Gould! Milford was in the ingoal and caught a bomb, and juggled it in the process. The raiders got a 20m tap, but Gus believes juggling a bomb and catching it without hitting the ground still doesn't constitute a catch on the full? How does juggling a ball take away catching it on the full still?

Fkn idiot, so biased. Prob spewin because he couldn't give a wrap to the 'champion payer' cronk for a 'champion bomb' or something.

[ROC181]

ill bet it was in favour of the storm?

mums the word but check it out. You wont believe the call. I would say its worse than the Manly Cows game

[stephenj]

ouch better go put the footy on inswtead of sbs reruns in search of bare boobs? ha ha

[Guest]

Are we referring to the no try to waqa?
The inconsistency in rulings is a bloody joke. Just irritates me more with the video refs overruling of cordners try -v- parra when there was no evidence to overturn the onfield decision.

[stephenj]

although it again wrecks my picks i was cheering for the underdog when they scored last minute!

[sydroosters]

when I saw it live, I thought it was a try, few replays later, probably a clear try but it wasn't clearer than the manly no try

[sydroosters]

although it again wrecks my picks i was cheering for the underdog when they scored last minute!

I have been cheering for the underdogs all year, especially parra. its a weird season this one, in a good way

[Headless Chook]

The whole problem revolves around the on-field ref being forced to make a decision and what constitutes 'conclusive' evidence to over turn the on-field decision.

[Rooster_6]

The whole problem revolves around the on-field ref being forced to make a decision and what constitutes 'conclusive' evidence to over turn the on-field decision.

Should be weight of probability as opposed to conclusive. I don't mind the refs making a call on field but it should only go back to them if the video ref can't get some good camera angles or it's too tight to call. None of this benefit of the doubt crap again.

[Rooster_6]

The whole problem revolves around the on-field ref being forced to make a decision and what constitutes 'conclusive' evidence to over turn the on-field decision.

Should be weight of probability as opposed to conclusive. I don't mind the refs making a call on field but it should only go back to them if the video ref can't get some good camera angles or it's too tight to call. None of this benefit of the doubt crap again.

[roostersrule2]

Thought it was a no try anyway, the ball landed short and it was on Croker's arm for the rest of the time.

[Guest]

anything against the storm is the gods equalling things up. The number of times smith is offside, late to get off a tackled player etc and he does not get penalised. And not to mention he protected species known as slater

[Kingbilly]

I just watched that Waqa no try. Slowed it down, paused it etc etc.
He was most definitely short when he first grounded the ball. The real debate is whether the ball touched the ground after that, before he went out.
If ref had said he thought it was a try it would have been called a try.

It was against Melbourne so its all good