Author Topic: McBurney  (Read 2417 times)

Offline rogerd3

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 2213
Re: McBurney
« Reply #15 on: July 25, 2012, 02:03:34 PM »
im sure someone can organise a hit
on this bloke.

Dubstep Dookie

  • Guest
Re: McBurney
« Reply #16 on: July 25, 2012, 03:55:57 PM »
thats the bottom line isnt it papa bear?
as frustrating as it is, you will never ever change an umpires decision by arguing with him ( nor should you be able to).

players at all all levels need that drilled into them and just STFU. you can only make matters worse otherwise.

The Kangaroos managed to get the umps to go to the replay to check the Edwards goal from the square........

The goal umpire asked for it to be reveiwed. He said beleived it was a goal but asked for it to be checked

N0rt had nothing to do with it

Correct me if wrong, but wasnt the goal umpire was convinced enough with the decision to already signal a goal? And It wasn't until the north players got in his face (in a pack) claiming one of the injustices of the century that he then asked field umpire Mc.Ballsack for a review?

That being the case, the north players had plenty to do with it, if not, we're the reason why it was reviewed.

Offline WilliamPowell

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 40046
  • Better to ignore a fool than encourage one
    • One Eyed Richmond
Re: McBurney
« Reply #17 on: July 25, 2012, 04:14:49 PM »
Correct me if wrong, but wasnt the goal umpire was convinced enough with the decision to already signal a goal? And It wasn't until the north players got in his face (in a pack) claiming one of the injustices of the century that he then asked field umpire Mc.Ballsack for a review?

That being the case, the north players had plenty to do with it, if not, we're the reason why it was reviewed.

Nope.

Just watched the replay  ;D and goal ump says to Ump No24 "I am sure it's a goal, I'm sure it's a goal but please have it reveiwed"

Nuffer No24 then says "Goal umpire believes it's a goal but wants it reveiwed"

Players can do what they like but they cannot ask let alone demand for a review. Go back to our game against Melb and the White goal - there was no review there despite us claiming "injustices of the century" too ;D :thumbsup

It was the umps call and the umps call only. Notice a few times that they are getting things out of order though. I rekcon it is at least the 3rd time in the past fortnight the field nuffer has given the all clear, a goals been signalled and then a reviews been called for
"Oh yes I am a dreamer, I still see us flying high!"

from the song "Don't Walk Away" by Pat Benatar 1988 (Wide Awake In Dreamland)

Dubstep Dookie

  • Guest
Re: McBurney
« Reply #18 on: July 25, 2012, 04:55:04 PM »
Correct me if wrong, but wasnt the goal umpire was convinced enough with the decision to already signal a goal? And It wasn't until the north players got in his face (in a pack) claiming one of the injustices of the century that he then asked field umpire Mc.Ballsack for a review?

That being the case, the north players had plenty to do with it, if not, we're the reason why it was reviewed.

Nope.

Just watched the replay  ;D and goal ump says to Ump No24 "I am sure it's a goal, I'm sure it's a goal but please have it reveiwed"

Nuffer No24 then says "Goal umpire believes it's a goal but wants it reveiwed"

Players can do what they like but they cannot ask let alone demand for a review. Go back to our game against Melb and the White goal - there was no review there despite us claiming "injustices of the century" too ;D :thumbsup

It was the umps call and the umps call only. Notice a few times that they are getting things out of order though. I rekcon it is at least the 3rd time in the past fortnight the field nuffer has given the all clear, a goals been signalled and then a reviews been called for

Why would the umpire want his decision to be reviewed if he's 'sure' it's a goal? Yes it's the umps call at the end of the day to ask for a review, but was it that the north players pressured the ump into making that call for a review even though he said he was 'sure'?

Under the specific circumstances its hard to believe there is no other reason why he would do that.

Offline Penelope

  • Internet nuffer and sooky jellyfish
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12777
Re: McBurney
« Reply #19 on: July 25, 2012, 06:00:57 PM »
because he doesnt want the scrutiny of getting a decision wrong that could have been confirmed or otherwise by a video review.

you often hear test match umpires and rugby refs say the believe it is so and so, but i want it checked.
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways my ways,” says the Lord.
 
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are my ways higher than your ways,
And my thoughts than your thoughts."

Yahweh? or the great Clawski?

yaw rehto eht dellorcs ti fi daer ot reisae eb dluow tI

Offline WilliamPowell

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 40046
  • Better to ignore a fool than encourage one
    • One Eyed Richmond
Re: McBurney
« Reply #20 on: July 25, 2012, 08:10:54 PM »
because he doesnt want the scrutiny of getting a decision wrong that could have been confirmed or otherwise by a video review.

you often hear test match umpires and rugby refs say the believe it is so and so, but i want it checked.

True al, they do it all the time in the NRL
"Oh yes I am a dreamer, I still see us flying high!"

from the song "Don't Walk Away" by Pat Benatar 1988 (Wide Awake In Dreamland)