Chiefs vs Wales, June 14
-
Bloody hell Wales sort your shit out.
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Donsteppa" data-cid="587839" data-time="1465889372"><p>Eh? Why? This is spot on so far......</p></blockquote>
Admittedly I only just tuned in as I thought it was a 7.30 start so have no idea how the game is going, but I have Welsh grandparents so like to see them do well. 21-0 is not doing well! -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Donsteppa" data-cid="587837" data-time="1465889281">
<div>
<p>Ref asked the soft cautious question.... Still, happy with 21 - 0 at halftime</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>In my mind, better than nine times out ten Donald's got that ball on the ground. It's far more likely that he has than he hasn't - why is the burden of proof on the try-scorer?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="No Quarter" data-cid="587842" data-time="1465889584"><p>Admittedly I only just tuned in as I thought it was a 7.30 start so have no idea how the game is going, but I have Welsh grandparents so like to see them do well. 21-0 is not doing well!</p></blockquote>
Don't let gats know you're qualified, fancy a game Saturday ?
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Stargazer" data-cid="587847" data-time="1465889999">
<div>
<p>No, no clear and obvious grounding (answer TMO).</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Yeah - but where was the evidence that it was held up? The only thing lacking was a camera angle - the balance of likelihoods was a try - and very clearly in favour of a try.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Stupid decision in my opinion.</p> -
only been watching for 10 minutes , chiefs look extra committed in defence
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="587849" data-time="1465890810">
<div>
<p>Yeah - but where was <strong>the evidence that it was held up</strong>? The only thing lacking was a camera angle - the balance of likelihoods was a try - and very clearly in favour of a try.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Stupid decision in my opinion.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>They don't need proof that it was held up. It needs to be clear and obvious that there was a grounding. If that isn't clear. there isn't a try. That's just the way it works. Would have preferred another outcome, but if they can't see a grounding, there isn't a try.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Stargazer" data-cid="587852" data-time="1465891030">
<div>
<p>They don't need proof that it was held up. It needs to be clear and obvious that there was a grounding. If that isn't clear. there isn't a try. That's just the way it works. Would have preferred another outcome, but if they can't see a grounding, there isn't a try.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Is that a definite refereeing protocol? If there's any doubt with a "try no try" ruling then the benefit of the doubt goes in favour of the defending team?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="587855" data-time="1465891190"><p>Is that a definite refereeing protocol? If there's any doubt with a "try no try" ruling then the benefit of the doubt goes in favour of the defending team?</p></blockquote>
<br>
Yep, needed them to ask the "any reason why not to award a try" question in this instance. -
<p>Donald missing touch from the penalty was criminal, after holding out for ten minutes straight onto another defensive set of tackling, tackling, and more tackling. Why wsa he going for 60 meters? He could have just gone for 30 or so, just make sure your team gets a breather. But he was good other than that. Bird the best player on the park so far</p>
