Bill Harrigan = WHAT A JOKE

[Kramer]

Tim Mander was on the Game Plan last night and said he would have given "no try" but when he heard that Hollywood had said he would have given it, qualified that by saying it was also 'a matter of individual opinion'.

And here was I thinking they were meant to ref by the rule book as it's written.

It's when 'individual opinion' overrides the rules of the game that the issues arise. And unfortunately that's what's happening this year - the rules are taking a backseat to individuals' opinions.

NC

Nc, you are so right in what you say.
This has been a problem in the game for long time.
It leaves the door open for these idiots to use the old opinion option when it suits.

[stephenj]

ill bet hes a liliberal?

[Guest]

As the rule states, in the referees opinion. Isn't that enough for everyone? I mean Clarks opinion was no penalty try, Harrigans is try and Mander is no try. Its all down to an opinion, and everyone has one.

Bingo.

I also don't see what the issue is with Harrigan stating his opinion.

[Guest]

Nc, you are so right in what you say.
This has been a problem in the game for long time.
It leaves the door open for these idiots to use the old opinion option when it suits.

But then the ruling states its a matter of opinion. So NC is contradicting herself. One part she says make a ruling as per the rules, yet doesnt like it when the rule book states that its up the refs opinion.

[Guest]

Bingo.

I also don't see what the issue is with Harrigan stating his opinion.

Because in this instance, even if he disagreed with it, Harrigan should probably have supported his ref and said he got it right, which he could have done without looking like a complete knob like most weeks, and also undermining Clark's decision.

[Chook Norris]

Fair enough mate. I'm happy to concede you are right based on that. Coming through the ref ranks (albeit 10 years ago now) we had it drilled into us about the 100 % thing. Maybe the rule has changed recently?

In any case, I still think the right call was made, even if it was down to the ref's opinion.

perhaps. I'm just going by what the book says and so i'm surprised that people have been bringing up a supposed 100% certainty rule, which i think is definitely not fair to the attacking side

http://www.arldevelopment.com.au/fil...non_linked.pdf

As the rule states, in the referees opinion. Isn't that enough for everyone? I mean Clarks opinion was no penalty try, Harrigans is try and Mander is no try. Its all down to an opinion, and everyone has one.

Yes, you are right and there will never perhaps be a correct answer.

Overall, i'm honestly not that fussed and on the SoO night i was fairly content with the ruling. There has been a lot of debate surrounding it though and as mentioned by Danish, if that had occurred in the 80th minute you can bet it would've been awarded a penalty try.

[Guest]

Nc, you are so right in what you say.
This has been a problem in the game for long time.
It leaves the door open for these idiots to use the old opinion option when it suits.

How can you not allow an individuals opinion or interpretation of events? How can you have a rule which would clearly state whether it was a penalty try or not? It has to come down to an individuals opinion of the events.

[Guest]

Because in this instance, even if he disagreed with it, Harrigan should probably have supported his ref and said he got it right, which he could have done without looking like a complete knob like most weeks, and also undermining Clark's decision.

So you would prefer he covered up referee mistakes?

[Kramer]

ill bet hes a liliberal?

He could be a Ggreean!

[Guest]

Yes, you are right and there will never perhaps be a correct answer.

Overall, i'm honestly not that fussed and on the SoO night i was fairly content with the ruling. There has been a lot of debate surrounding it though and as mentioned by Danish, if that had occurred in the 80th minute you can bet it would've been awarded a penalty try.[/QUOTE]

It is a correct answer. Clarke said no try, so it is no try. I get what you are saying, but it is not a black and white rule. Its not like we have a line, and he is in or out. 80th minute! Who knows. Harrigans personality says he would give it. He would be able to read about it for weeks and months to come.

[Kramer]

How can you not allow an individuals opinion or interpretation of events? How can you have a rule which would clearly state whether it was a penalty try or not? It has to come down to an individuals opinion of the events.

All good mate.
I look at it this way, that is just a matter of opinion, not so much a matter of interpretation.

Opinion is not to be confused with interpretation of rules.
That is my opinion.

Giddyup!,.

[Guest]

So you would prefer he covered up referee mistakes?

Of course not.

This wasn't a mistake though. And it probably would have looked better (and been easy) for Bill to say he agreed with it.

[Guest]

Of course not.

This wasn't a mistake though. And it probably would have looked better (and been easy) for Bill to say he agreed with it.

No, I acknowledge this was not a mistake. But I also acknowledge either ruling would have been acceptable.

Personally, when someone is asked a question I prefer they answer the question honestly. Which is what Bill did. A journalist asked the question, he answered. Not answering honestly is what got him into trouble after Game 1.

[Guest]

No, I acknowledge this was not a mistake. But I also acknowledge either ruling would have been acceptable.

Personally, when someone is asked a question I prefer they answer the question honestly. Which is what Bill did. A journalist asked the question, he answered. Not answering honestly is what got him into trouble after Game 1.

I see your point. But the Origin I debacle wasn't in response to a journalist. It was told to Trent Barrett and went from there. Purple Monkey Dishwasher. A white lie in this instance would have been fine.

[ROC181]

Let's put this in perspective...Had it been Ingliss being tackled without the ball, Stewart lurking like Slater would have made no difference, they would have awarded a try. NSW are nearly as much maligned by the refs like the Roosters...it's clear!