i was calling no try for that then phil clarke made a lot of sense (shudder) all angles have to prove that it isn't a try and one angle wasnt conclusive so benifit of the doubt goes to the attacker
2 angles show no try then the side on angle shows he had downward pressure so i think that one angle was conclusive and also benefit of the doubt would have been sufficent
Quote="karetaker":1ea5r40v3 minutes into tonights game he had to mention wigan do something better than anyone else,im sure im watching HKR V Catalan?'"
Surely if two angles show that there was daylight between hand and ball, then there was daylight! Also, all angles didn't prove that Hornes attempt was 'no try' so where was benefit of doubt there?
All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or its subsites.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.
RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.
