Right before I head for my pit I do think we need a thread about Mr Alibert.

I saw it on the big screen and thought, well Burrow has not clearly been held up, and it looked like he might have got the ball down. As the rules on this are clear and Mr Alibert has to be certain that it WAS NOT try, then I expected a try, possible with the benenfit of the doubt, but that is what I expected.

As Southstander says in his report, Rob thought it was a try, so did the Rhinos players, so did the fans, so did the Wigan players and so did their fans... the only person that did not think it was a try was Thierry!

I thought that when I saw it back on a small screen, maybe Rob was held-up and it was just not clear enough on the big-screen? When I watched it under the stand at half-time I really thought, rather than it been the benefit of the doubt, it looked reasonably clear that Rob had got the ball down and it was a try!

I have just watched it again at home and it is clear to me, and every one on the Sky team, that Mr Alibert got that wrong.

While it looks like Rob got the ball down, it is not 100% clear however, what is clear is that you can not be 100% certain that Rob was held up! As such, I understand the guidance in this situation to be clear, he has to give a try as he is unable to be certain it was not a try. It was a very poor call by Mr Alibert!

The whole of Super League does deserve better, surely?

I wasn't happy at the time. I was lucky enough to see it again at half time and I've just seen it again now and I think he's got it right as much as it pains me to say it.

Really, tell me why? Am I missing something? The whole of the Sky team thinks he got it wrong too... genuine questions?

Let it go, we lost fair and square.

You clearly don't read my posts, I am not bitter and I don't think refs decisions win or lose you games 99.9% of the time. The only time I feel that as ever happened in the SL era was at the Millenium Magic and we were on the right side of a poor decision that lost Bradford the game of course!

However, I am a student of the rules, as most regulars on here will tell you. If I am missing something, I would like to know? I thought he was wrong, but that is all, nothing more or less.

I didn't see Burrow ground the ball. Not saying he didn't, just saying I didn't see it.

I was half expecting a 'benefit of the doubt' decision but wasn't surprised when it wasn't forthcoming either.

These are always difficult.

I thought it should of been given as a try, on the replay you certainly cant say that Rob doesn't get it down, it was impossible to say because you couldn't see the ball. I thought that with cases like this that the attacking team always got BOD but Hallibut must have x-ray vision or something.
It probably wouldn't of changed the outcome as Wigan were the better side but it would of put us 6-0 up. Instead Wigan get the ball back, complete the set with a kick downfield and Senoir get penalised for an obstruction that never was. Wigan scored not long after, should be 6 up and instead were 6 down.
We'll be one of the teams to beat when we've got everyone back and i bet other teams will want to avoid us come play-off time. Great effort from the lads.

That's pretty much how I saw it.

He wasn't held up - admittedly you cannot see whether he grounds the ball or not conclusively, but for me it was a definite Benefit of the Doubt. WWhat's the point in having benefit of the doubt if you don't give that benefit? I think Ganson thought it was a try too. Looking forward to an interesting game on Sunday with Mr Alibert. At least he's not biased, just consistently bad lol

At the time I thought it was a 50/50 and I thought 50/50 decision were meant to be given to the attacking side....there was no evidence to support the fact it was or was not grounded.

Not particularly bitter about it as like i said, there was no clear evidence to point to it being grounded. Had that been given though it might have altered the result, who knows!

It was never a try, Leuluai got the hand underneath the ball.

Stevo going on about how Burrow had strapping on his wrist, so did Leuluai and it was the latter's hand, that was underneath the ball!

I thought it should have ben benefit of the doubt, but can only think that Alibert took the view that there were 3 arms under the ball (Richards x1 and Leuluai x2) and the ball wasn't grounded.

It was not possible to say one way or the other from the Sky replays IMO, but reviewing it again it does look more like the ball is held up than it gets to ground, although still inconclusive.

It didn't look a try for mine, the defenders hand is clearly under the ball.

You are also ignoring the knock on and forward pass in the move.


Initially I would have given a try (benefit of the doubt) but having watched it countless times on the tv screens under the West Stand it would appear that both Richards and Tommy managed to get hands under the ball.

You should be proud of your team last night they gave everything, and that's all you can ever ask.

Thierry got it spot on IMO

You back your opinion up with the sky team think he got it wrong? They're al jokes.

Regarding the try, Burrow had stopped moving, he only went over the line when leuluai pushed him over, hence the 5th tackle play decision.

It was never a try, there were at least 2 arms under the ball.

I think that Richards completed the tackle holding Burrow up on his back. It definetly wasnt a try though.

agree with all of the above apart from this part, senior does this trick often and gets away with it, just a shame its taken the man in the middle so long to cotton on to what the fans have seen for a long time

Whilst Senior may have got away with it in the past, last night's was not an obstruction in a million years.

Eddie's hissy fit about it was funny when Phil Clarke said he had been badly done to and Eddie's response what that he had been getting away with it for years.

Is it me or is he getting more and more bitter in his old age ?

To me he was held up the first time, and we should of actually got a penalty for a flop? Or was that just me?

Not seen the try apart from on the big screen last night and couldn't really see it clearly.

Just like to point that highlighted bit out, came out of the ground last night and was pretty happy with last night and a lot of the inexperienced lads will learn a lot from it.

IMO it should have been a benefit of the doubt try.

That so many have such a different view shows how difficult a job it must be to make these decisions.

Watched in the pub with no sound (so didn't have to listen to the pundits) but I didn't see the ball hit the ground and would have given the same decision as the VR.

Sorry, posted this topic and I don't really log on at weekends!

I have just looked at it again after some posters said they could clearly see hands under the ball... but I can't see the ball at all, just hands and arms but no ball. The 'white' that you can see looks like Rob's strapping but not the ball?

In respect of whether the tackle was complete by Richards and Lueluai then pushed him over the line after the tackle was complete, this argument I can clearly see as being a valid decision from Alibert. As such, had he disallowed the try and awarded the Rhinos a penalty I would have probably felt hard done at the time (after all, we all wear slightly tinted specs) but when I watched I could actually possibly see that as a valid call. Of course, I don't think the ball or Rob's ball carrying arm ever touched the ground prior to Lueluai coming into the tackle, so Ganson would have had to have called held to signal to both players that the tackle was complete because in his opinion forward momentum had stopped.

As I stated in my orignal post, I could not see the ball (at all really!) being clearly ground but neither could I cleary see it being held up either, as such, according to the current guidance, it is a try.