Chiefs vs Wales, June 14
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Stargazer" data-cid="587834" data-time="1465889191">
<div>
<p>That's only relevant if the ref had asked whether "there is a reason not to award the try". But that's not what the ref asked.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Try or no try?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>TRY!!!</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Stargazer" data-cid="587834" data-time="1465889191"><p>That's only relevant if the ref had asked whether "there is a reason not to award the try". But that's not what the ref asked.</p></blockquote>
<br>
Ref asked the soft cautious question.... Still, happy with 21 - 0 at halftime -
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.
