- Apr 8, 2006
- 42,123
- 44,081
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Dallas Cowboys and Texas Longhorns
Outplayed and lucky to be so close but can't cop that held up call.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 6 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Look at the tweet posted in this thread. It's clear 100% - 0:02 of the tweet, clearly is the ball on the grass
Wrong - watch the x videoThat image the ball isn’t even on the ground! Try again. At no point is it conclusively on the ground. It might have been but it’s not a howler. Refs call is fine. Should have come back as inconclusive though it’s the same decision anyway
No, you should - damicky posted an image that shows it, but you didn't. I'm not arguing it wasn't a try - I called that when it happened. But I'm also not forgetting that the bunker contributed to Melbourne's first try.You better go to specsavers
That's better.
Whilst I disagree that it doesn’t conclusively show a try (I think it’s crystal clear) the issue for me is the bunker didn’t say insufficient to overturn he clearly said it’s clearly “held up” that’s wrong, the vision absolutely does not show it held up.
If the bunker called insufficient I could accept that (albeit I’d disagree) but the calls completely wrong.
Wrong - watch the x video
Because I desperately need your affirmation, to clarify - whether Storm go on to win the game.What do you mean we will never know?
It’s clearly grounded.
Nah, bunker called held up, accordingly he would have overruled it Klein called try.I hate Penrith so much but where does it hit the ground conclusively. Was sent up no try has to be 100% conclusive evidence why it wasn’t a no try. If it was sent up a try it would have stood. Refs call stood
That image the ball isn’t even on the ground! Try again. At no point is it conclusively on the ground. It might have been but it’s not a howler. Refs call is fine. Should have come back as inconclusive though it’s the same decision anyway
It was relevant as it shouldn't have been a 7 tackle 20m restartAnd storm. Panthers hand is irrelevant.
The ball goes towards the ground then stops and bounces up a bit, because it's hit the ground, that's how gravity worksAnd it doesn’t show it hit the ground. Might have hit the ground. Not enough to overturn despite John’s thinking otherwise
You can’t get much conclusive than than no hand between the ball and grass and to top it off actually bounce up after hitting the ground.Whilst I disagree that it doesn’t conclusively show a try (I think it’s crystal clear) the issue for me is the bunker didn’t say insufficient to overturn he clearly said it’s clearly “held up” that’s wrong, the vision absolutely does not show it held up.
If the bunker called insufficient I could accept that (albeit I’d disagree) but the calls completely wrong.
Pretty big mistake when it’s kind of you’re one job though.Only mistake was it not coming back as inconclusive. It will be coming back the same call though
Laughing my arse off at all the still photos that don't show the ball on the ground
I’m not sure about the momentum thing (Penrith were all over the storm all night). The rest I agree withYou can’t get much conclusive than than no hand between the ball and grass and to top it off actually bounce up after hitting the ground.
It’s a indefensible and absolute howler of a call that turns the momentum of the game.
There’s no hand under the ball, certainly not on the vision we see.With a hand under the ball yes. Just isn’t enough to overturn its close but it’s 50/50 and they always go to the refs call.
The mistake was not coming back as “inconclusive”. Its still the same call though so what’s the big deal