I am happy admitting it wasn't a try if Ian Smith gets dropped.

As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, perhaps Smith is mindful of what happened to him last time he upset Saints with a refereeing performance?



It's the only possible explanation for not realising that a) Roby initially grounded the ball short and b) the tackle was therefore completed at that point and any subsequent loss of control is a knock-on, scrum to Crusaders.



I'm not prepared to concede that he simply doesn't understand the laws of the game or that he saw a completely different replay to anyone else, so it has to be a concious decision to find a reason to award the try.

I know I only managed to upset one simple pie-eater. I will have to work on it.





I know the rules mate. It works like this...



The video ref pressed the green button so therefore its a try.







See that wasn't too hard.

But, there could have been no argument from anyone if that try had nnot have been given.



No one I know expected the word "TRY" to come up on the screen after watching the replays.



Your point would be valid if it was a 50/50 decision and it was turned down.

Difference is Bill Harrigan stood himself down. Can you see Smith walking in and saying... I think you should drop me? I think not.

He must have forgot about that when he disallowed Emmitts try.

What he said. Also, it appears to be the first VR abomination that has been pretty much universally agreed as being utter gash. Certainly that i can remember. If a man can give THAT as a try, then he should be permanently relieved of VR duties on the ground of incompetence.



What did Eddie say? That they had received a shout about "the ball never lost contact with the arm"? Hard to do, but if that really was the attempt at justification then it makes it even worse.



I've been saying for years that we simply do not have VRs who are competent to do the job, and on that basis there is no point to it, and unless and until we give the VR job to someone who can actually see what is happening on a 2D screen correctly, the string of unbelievable cockups is certain to continue. Although we may not better that one for "VR Cockup Of The Decade".



On second thoughts, over the years it does sadly have plenty of stiff competition.

This is where Ian Smith has decided to use the "2 wrongs make a right" card. Emmitts try looked OK and he must have realised that after the "no try button" so he,s just evened it up with Roby's "no try" is a try.



Noticed this is creeping into the game a bit more with referees, they make a few "howlers" in a match then find a way of rewarding a penalty or a try in compensation.



But to do it in a televised game is suicidal in Ian Smiths case.

He was touching the ball AS it hit the ground just like he would have done if he had oh I dont know perhaps............................grouded the ball for a try ergo it was a try.

I guess after rewatching it you will now agree you are wrong ergo you are talking out of you anus

He didn't really, he got stood down by Finch, he just admitted he screwed up and deserved to be stood down rather than pretending he was right when everyone else thought he needed a white stick. It is true that Cummins is loathe to criticise bad referreing, to the extent where he'll appear contrarian in his support for bad calls, so we're far less likely to see anybody stood down in the UK.

Not only has Ian Smith not stood himself down, he's got the Video Referee's job for Wembley. You could not make it up.



If Cummings had anything at all about him then Smith's blatant error would ensure he was at least stood down for the showpiece game of the year.



But then who does Cummings answer to ?