The NRL will have some serious explaining to do after a video refereeing clanger overshadowed the Sydney Roosters’ 38-12 semi-final win over Canterbury on Friday night.
With his side holding onto a slender 8-4 lead midway through the second half, Roosters prop Kane Evans was met by four Bulldogs defenders in what looked like a routine carry in the danger zone.
However, despite appearing to have been stopped in momentum, lead referee Matt Cecchin allowed Evans to edge closer to the tryline, before eventually finishing over the line.
Standing less than five metres away in the in-goal, Cecchin stopped time and called on video referees Bernard Sutton and Ben Galea to review the grounding.
Crucially, Cecchin also ruled a try.
Initial replays showed Evans planting before the tryline, only for the ball to be lifted again and then re-planted on the tryline.
Sutton and Galea looked at a number of replays before stunningly pressing the green button.
Bulldogs coach Des Hasler was diplomatic when asked about the controversial decision.
“At the end of the day, it probably wasn’t a try and the referee called it a try and the video referee probably didn’t have enough evidence to overrule,” he said.
“Was it a turning point? Maybe. It’s all speculation now.”
Evans said he believed he had scored, but was worried when looking at the replays.
“Yeah I scored it. When I got up it was over the line,” he said.
“I thought it looked like no try but when he gave it… happy days.”
Roosters coach Trent Robinson said the call could’ve gone either way, but agreed that it was a turning point in the match.
“I was happy that he awarded it a try first of all, because I think it could’ve been either way,” he said.
“If he awarded it a try, it’s a try. If he awarded it a no try, it would’ve been a no try, we couldn’t see. I think that’s our system. So that was a big moment.”
At the time, Sutton said on the Channel Nine broadcast: “There was insufficient evidence to overturn the decision.”
After the Evans try, the Roosters crossed another four times in the final half an hour to book at preliminary final against Brisbane at Suncorp Stadium next week.
NRL SEMI-FINAL 1:
RESULT: Roosters 38 bt Bulldogs 12 at Allianz Stadium
KEY MOMENT: Kane Evans’ controversial 52nd minute try. Referee Matt Cecchin ruled try before sending it upstairs to the video referee who upheld the decision. The try extended the Roosters 8-4 by six and they were never headed.
KEY QUOTE: “You need to have conviction as a ref.” Roosters coach TRENT ROBINSON on the adjudication system that requires a referee to make an onfield decision.
JUDICIARY WATCH: None
KEY INJURIES: None
WHAT’S NEXT: The Roosters advance to a preliminary final against Brisbane at Suncorp Stadium next Friday. The Bulldogs are finished for the year.
Cowsboy
Guest
Muzz, sorry for the delay - i don't have the time or even internet at home to do this so it's coffee break keyboard warrior stuff only for me. I did enjoy last years semi - Roosters v Cows - is that what you meant? despite the result. More than happy that was called as a knock-on (not 'more than happy' if you know what i mean but "accepting of the ruling"). There is nothing worse than a one-sided finals game (even when the Cows are doing the thrashing) so to see them come back from 0-30 and just go down was still a great night's entertainment. You are right that Evens is well within his right to plant the ball on the line (even though it should have been called held much earlier - anywhere in the other 99m of the field of play 'held' would have been called seconds earlier) the problem is he never put the ball on the line. it has taken me a while to work out screen captures and uploading pics - so here goes nothin': https://i.imgur.com/qxBDMKt.jpg - well short. the try line looks curved because of the low camera angle but there is a touch of white well forward of the point of the ball. https://i.imgur.com/0gQIqBL.jpg - so much white line in front of the ball that it can't be touching https://i.imgur.com/hfMauI4.jpg - refs is looking thru legs, lots of legs, the ball is not definitively in clear view. I like neither the Dogs or the Roosters so i don't really care who won. I do care that i was robbed of watching a tight contest because the on-field ref is forced to make a decision and the video ref can not see what most of us can see - nothing about it in real time had the look of a try, nothing in the replay looks like a fair try. The Dogs dropped their bundle after conceding that 'try' and the subsequent 6-pointer. For that alone they didn't deserve to win the match. But, they should never have been put in that situation in the 1st place. Best of luck against the Donkeys Muzz - you will need it.
Casper
Guest
When will everyone wake up that controversial calls are spelt 'Cechin' in the important NRL games. Not a Bulldogs fan but it seems to have been overlooked that the try only came about because the refs completely missed a forward pass that would have done the NFL quarterbacks proud. Cechin should be sacked now.
pete bloor
Guest
I'm with the one eyed bulldog here.. I think form Cecchin's angle he probably doesn't see it short (or see the second move) but it wasn't a try and the replays show a second movement. But... He should have just been called held about 20 minutes earlier.
pete bloor
Guest
But Con if the correct call of held had been made they would have had 5th tackle on the doggies line and presumably at some point in the match gotten the ball back right? and presumably not on their own goal line. the ref awarded an incorrect try but the RTS try was all the dogs and roosters making
Muzz
Guest
Credibility? lol Baz A bit rich coming from you who hasn't stopped bagging the refs all year.Go and have another bacon and egg role with chips maaaaaaaate : ) Cowsboy, No double movement mate. The ref hadn't called held. Take another look at it in real time. Evans is well within his right to plant the ball down on the line. You can't see Kano's left knee. It's covered by the grass. Common sense tells you that he has one though, right? Common sense also tells you that the part of the ball that's hidden by the grass is on the line. Cecchin had the perfect view to make the correct decision. How good was last years prelim?
The Barry
Roar Guru
Are you employed by the Roosters...? Did the ref have a good view of it? The ball popped out at the bottom of the tackle. There was Evans and at least three defenders blocking his view. If we're just going to say "the ref was closer to the action" or "the ref had the best view of it" let's do away with the video ref. Anyone that watches a replay of that decision and thinks try has no idea. Every interview I've heard with Evans' since has involved him almost laughing at the fact that he got awarded the try. Scott I understand you support the Roosters and have a bit of a man crush on Trent Robinson. That's fine. But you don't have to support a clearly dud refs decision just because your team got the benefit of it. If it was a two point ball game I could understand you defending but you won by 26...?!?!
The Barry
Roar Guru
That photo is the worst "evidence" I've ever seen. a) the red line isn't drawn along the try line. b) it's not parallel to the try line. c) the ball is still touching the ground short of the line. Muzz - your team won by 28 points. They deserved to win. You don't need to try and defend this absolute stinker of a decision. You're not doing your credibility any favours. Better to just say "We got away with one there. Dididn't effect the result though..." Good luck for the rest of the season.
JayBob
Guest
Lol, well laid out argument.
Cowsboy
Guest
Yes, the red line does look as though it touches the footy but my point is that the red line has been drawn above (in the photo) the actual try line. That white speckling above where your drawn circle joins is the actual try line. The footy is on its point (at a 45degree angle on its point) so its area of contact with the ground is minimal and mostly within the field of play behind the point of the ball. Also, this photo is taken from a low angle of about 30degrees with the ground so there is a skewed perspective that blends the line with the ball. Also, your line of sight for the ref is another fallacy. the pic is taken from a completely different angle than the refs line of sight - your arrow is not proof that the ref can actually see the ball. Besides, you are ignoring the fact that if this tackle was made anywhere in the other 99m of the field of play it would have been called 'held' seconds earlier. As someone has said above: Held. Short of line. Double movement.
Muzz
Guest
It's a footy Cowsboy not a banana. The red line runs across part of the ball so what does that tell you.
Cowsboy
Guest
Hilarious. you can see the white line behind your drawn red line and the ball is still well in front of your red line. nice image capture, but not even a good try at making your point
Pickett
Guest
Buzz off John Badbreath. That BS penalty try to lyin, divin Lyon was the most disgraceful decision in RL history. It made the Evans try decision look reasonable.
Samtwocan
Guest
You are right Jacksod , constantly spewing bile is acceptable .
ScottWoodward.me
Roar Guru
Matt Do you work for News Limited? Stop knocking the refs, they have a very difficult job to do with rules designed to offer multiple 50/50 calls. With this particular call, the ref was 6 feet from the ball and made an instant call. The player's body language backed up the call. We have no choice to support the ref here as the video angle was not good enough as what the ref had. Matt, how about a focus on the great footy that was played instead of looking for negatives!
Muzz
Guest
No mate, That image is when the ball 1st makes contact with the ground and is on the line.. Cecchin is right there and hadn't called held.
Samtwocan
Guest
Do you seriously think they sit down before a game and pick who will win ? Idiots like you have argued this forever and a day yet no one has ever come out and confessed this was the case and stats would prove your argument to be void ... The score was 38-12 with a sympathy try on the bell to the dogs .... The refs make mistakes and sometimes they are shockers but to suggest they are all on the take is just STUPID .
Samtwocan
Guest
I think you'll find Fittler did a little more than just play for the Roosters ... And so what , jobs for the boys is an institution in the world we live in , I'm sure you'd do the same .
Samtwocan
Guest
What a load of bile...
pete bloor
Guest
The Kane offload looked like it from the main viewing angle but when they show the reverse it was clearly backwards. It was because you only see the ball from the original angle after rts has carried it for a step. Short offloads to support at pace will always look like that.
pete bloor
Guest
Bwahaha enjoy the off-season