Chiefs vs Wales, June 14
-
<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>
-
<p>Love the Beaver! </p>
