Paul Cullen : Judgement calls : Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:21 pm  

Just watched the highlights on boots and all and (i know its old news) but the two tries shown that were disallowed both looked ok to me. Paul Cullen said they were judgement calls. It seems that refs are looking for reasons not to award tries rather than award them.

Re: Paul Cullen : Judgement calls : Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:24 pm  

eddievan wrote:

Just watched the highlights on boots and all and (i know its old news) but the two tries shown that were disallowed both looked ok to me. Paul Cullen said they were judgement calls. It seems that refs are looking for reasons not to award tries rather than award them.

As I said at the game and on Look North on Monday after seeing them Silverwood robbed us.

Langleys was a try, as was Platts.

GET THAT ******* CUMMINGS OUT

[Bullseye]

: Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:27 pm  

I'm not sure. What's the directive from Cummings? If refs are 50/50 about whether a try should be given should they allow it? Or should they allow only if they are 100% sure?

: Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:28 pm  

I thought it was benifit of the doubt to the attacking side.

: Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:55 pm  

Just seen the highlights myself and I gotta say the first one of those two tries looked like it should have been given. Langley's was almost impossible to tell.

: Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:58 pm  

eddievan wrote:

I thought it was benifit of the doubt to the attacking side.

It was - so if that ruling has changed, Cummings should have bloody well announced it. But if it has NOT changed, then it will just add yet more grist to the mill that we are not getting the calls.

tbh, I was expecting a bad ride from the officials last weekend, following the apologisagate debacle of a few days before. Lets be generous and say the officials are only human (except for Klein of course, but he's gone now) and may not have been too pleased about their mistakes (or whatever they were) being widely publicised and acknowledged?