What was wrong with the try?

[Bob dog]

Looked bloody great to me, are you telling me too good is bad?
That ref punished us to to death in the first half for no good reason.

 

[Rodzilla]

could you be more specific? which try?

 

[Bob dog]

The try!

 

[The DoggFather]

The Stanley try or the Lafai try?

 

[Indiandog]

Lol.. love it!

 

[Mr Invisible]

Q: What was wrong with the try?
A: Panthers didn't score it.

Panthers GREEN
Bulldogs RED

 

[Bob dog]

What the hell was wrong with the Lafai Try, Im still scratching my head?

 

[Mr Invisible]

What the hell was wrong with the Lafai Try, Im still scratching my head?

He wasn't wearing a Panthers jersey!

 

[The DoggFather]

What the hell was wrong with the Lafai Try, Im still scratching my head?

Clarke is a Commie.

 

[Izzy Forreal]

Looked bloody great to me, are you telling me too good is bad?
That ref punished us to to death in the first half for no good reason.

What the hell was wrong with the Lafai Try, Im still scratching my head?

There were two things wrong with it. The moron in pink with the whistle and the moron making video decisions.

 

[Reesy]

The Lafai "no try" is a try every day of the week in every year I've been watching league, all 36 of those years. I won't comment on Steve Clarke for the moment as I could write war and peace on that poor individual. The key point I want to make here is that video referees don't seem to understand the concept of "conclusive evidence". They are taking it as a means to apply discretion, which is subject to bias - bias can be conscious (direct, known or undisguised) or it can be unconscious (ie the person has a predetermined behaviour and doesn't know they are biased). The rule is simply this - there needs to be clear evidence to overturn an on-field decision. In Lafai's case, that would of required clear separation from hand and ball. In no way, in the view of any reasonable person watching or other interested person did this occur. Therefore the decision was incorrect. Whether it cost Canterbury the game we will never know, but it certainly cost them momentum. As we know, momentum is massive in rugby league.

 

[Bulldog_NJ]

The only thing wrong with is was that Mr S Clarke was in the video refs box, and a Bulldogs player scored it. It's not the first time he has done it to us either.

 

[Kempsey Dog]

Its Steve Clark what do you expect. The idiotic moron who cost us the 2009 minor premiership, by disallowing Idris try from a Jamie Soward dive... Ironically they now both play for the Panthers.

 

[Nano]

The only thing wrong with is was that Mr S Clarke was in the video refs box, and a Bulldogs player scored it. It's not the first time he has done it to us either.

Three times in the one night lol

 

[Bob dog]

This is the corruption we are up against, until someone is charged, sacked and dealt with harshly we are not going to win jack shit.

 

[Horny Wog]

The rules must change.

The only video ref review should be made by a captains call. The players know if its a try or not. Each team get's 2 chances and if you blow both than its bad luck. Just like they do in the Tennis.

 

[jpneves]

The Lafai "no try" is a try every day of the week in every year I've been watching league, all 36 of those years. I won't comment on Steve Clarke for the moment as I could write war and peace on that poor individual. The key point I want to make here is that video referees don't seem to understand the concept of "conclusive evidence". They are taking it as a means to apply discretion, which is subject to bias - bias can be conscious (direct, known or undisguised) or it can be unconscious (ie the person has a predetermined behaviour and doesn't know they are biased). The rule is simply this - there needs to be clear evidence to overturn an on-field decision. In Lafai's case, that would of required clear separation from hand and ball. In no way, in the view of any reasonable person watching or other interested person did this occur. Therefore the decision was incorrect. Whether it cost Canterbury the game we will never know, but it certainly cost them momentum. As we know, momentum is massive in rugby league.

I have always felt the dogs have copped the wrong end of the stick from Clarke. When on field and in the video room

 

[pupii]

That was a try, especially as the on field ref awarded it. The Stanley one I can understand as the ref gave it no try and it was pretty hard to find conclusive evidence it was a try.

The problem is the system. I believe if it's referred upstairs let the video ref make the call. I don't see the point in the ref making a call when he obviously doesn't know.

 

[dogsballs]

They should go back to benefit of the doubt it seemed a far better system. I believe we would of had 2/3 with benefit if the doubt going to the attacking team.

 

[c-b-b]

Clarke was in the box with Ben Galea - I heard earlier on the radio that the one actually making the decisions was Galea.

They also need to scrap the try/no-try call from the refs imo.