: Sat Apr 11, 2009 3:59 pm  

This thread is so funny.

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 4:03 pm  

Mick Gledhill wrote:

This thread is so funny.

Initially, yes. But then it's sad how some fans just can't take losing.

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 4:11 pm  

To be honest, these threads remind me very much of the same sort of threads on the Bulls MB going back a bit, once we started to lose games that we believed we had a right to win and as it slowly started to dawn on us that we were not actually as unstoppable as we thought we were. It got worse as our dominance slowly eroded, and those fans who had grown accustomed to winning as if of a right became increasingly rattled. Maybe that's what always happens once a club has passed its peak for that particular era?

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 4:12 pm  

DISA wrote:

I fail to see how you can say this with any confidence. You seem to be been a little arrogant here tvoc, if you dont mind me saying.

You won't get a reaction from me no matter what you accuse me of.

DISA wrote:

Can you name any other time where the video ref was referred for the sam offence before?

No I can't but isn't that precisely my point here. It doesn't need to be referred because it doesn't happen. You think it does but you can't back that view up with any examples. Not one prior to last nights.

DISA wrote:

We simply have not looked for this offence before, so therefore of course nobody can give specifics on when it did happen. I can bet you we will be now though, which is stupid.

The video referees don't look for players stood in offside positions when tries are scored? I'd say it's probably the number one thing they are called on to do.

You think otherwise, so why not prove it. Could it be because (just like me) you can't recall any such similar offsides occurring by the attacking side.

Last night was a rarity. If it wasn't there'd be plenty of precedents. So where are they?

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 4:20 pm  

tvoc wrote:

You won't get a reaction from me no matter what you accuse me of.



No I can't but isn't that precisely my point here. It doesn't need to be referred because it doesn't happen. You think it does but you can't back that view up with any examples. Not one prior to last nights.



The video referees don't look for players stood in offside positions when tries are scored? I'd say it's probably the number one thing they are called on to do.

You think otherwise, so why not prove it. Could it be because (just like me) you can't recall any such similar offsides occurring by the attacking side.

Last night was a rarity. If it wasn't there'd be plenty of precedents. So where are they?

A video referee has never been asked before to look if a player was offside at a play the ball. Yes they have been asked to look at offside at a kick, but not a move from way down field.

You can clearly hear on the mic from last night when Smith asks Alibert to look at the incident, he says "do you understand what I am aksing Thierry". Alibert said back please repeat to which Smith then gave a clearer instruction.

Both refs were unsure, simply because it is not something looked at previously. You can bet your whole life savings, that had Smith simply asked Alibert if he could just check that the play the ball was played correct, that that try would have been given, with no mention from anybody, including commentators and fans, about Webb been offside.

That is why I say we can not give you examples previously, because it simply is not looked at. I can bet you now that we will have a offside watch thread each week on here from now with many examples.

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 4:20 pm  

Mick Gledhill wrote:

This thread is so funny.

Not as funny as your life being destroyed by gambling

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 4:33 pm  

DISA wrote:

Both refs were unsure, simply because it is not something looked at previously.

Perhaps they haven't been asked to look for it before because it hasn't happened before. Except earlier in the thread there was an example given of Wellens having a try ruled out for the same infringement.

DISA wrote:

You can bet your whole life savings, that had Smith simply asked Alibert if he could just check that the play the ball was played correct, that that try would have been given, with no mention from anybody, including commentators and fans, about Webb been offside.

Then they would all have been 100% wrong in their decision and done the gave irreparable damage had Leeds won yet another game V Bradford on such an incorrect ruling.

DISA wrote:

That is why I say we can not give you examples previously, because it simply is not looked at.

The Paul Wellens example from earlier in the thread if accurate would suggest otherwise. Perhaps, just perhaps mind, that it hasn't been looked at much because it doesn't occur much where it results in a try being referred to the video referee.

DISA wrote:

I can bet you now that we will have a offside watch thread each week on here from now with many examples.

I look forward to it and will continue to give my unbiased (if somewhat arrogant) view of the video referees ruling, unusually for this board, using both eyes in the process.

Do you think the try should have been allowed to stand?

[Wheels]

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 4:35 pm  

tvoc wrote:

The Paul Wellens example from earlier in the thread if accurate would suggest otherwise. Perhaps, just perhaps mind, that it hasn't been looked at much because it doesn't occur much where it results in a try being referred to the video referee.

Bingo.

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 4:39 pm  

tvoc wrote:

Do you think the try should have been allowed to stand?

To the letter of the law no. I accept fully your viewpoint on that.

But I strongly believe (without been able to give you specific examples) that this happens a lot, and to remain consistent it should have been allowed.

I still believe what I put above. Had it not been asked to look at, and just look at the play the ball, that the try would have been given, and NOBODY would have been mentioning it as given incorrectly, you included.

[Wheels]

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 4:45 pm  

DISA wrote:

To the letter of the law no. I accept fully your viewpoint on that.

But I strongly believe (without been able to give you specific examples) that this happens a lot, and to remain consistent it should have been allowed.

Do you realise how daft that reads?