The call was correct. You can't make contact from an illegal defensive position and then not get a call because you move back.

The MacDonald out of bounds call was clearly wrong.

Ref's actually did a great job this game surprisingly

They do overturn some. It's not like it's always unsuccessful

Agree with you here. Foul should've been overturned. Any contact, if any, was incidental and made no difference whatsoever to the play. If that's a foul there's 50 fouls a game that go uncalled

It was a soft foul but he clearly hit his leg, probably a tough call, and yes MacDonald was clearly out when he threw it back in. Refs were great.
Re the challenge it gives you a chance, use it or lose it.

Start charging the guy who starts twirling their finger $5000 if they're wrong.

He did not "clearly hit his leg", Gaze, Heverin, Rucker all said the same

SixersFan there was no contact whatsoever you could see in the footage it's a waste of time having the system if your not going to over turn obvious ones like that, and they also missed a clear MacDonald out of bounds blind Freddy could see that

Drmic couldn't have done any more to get out of the way even if he was jumping into the Derwent from the Arena carpark. Don't wish to see our league take up the NBA ethos if a player with the ball is breathed on then it is a foul.

My issue with this call is Aylen goes over to the coach and explains the call. So has now established what he sees as a foul in terms of contact and positioning, but then goes on to completely ignore lots of similar contact every play after this.

What if we were to hear the explanation from behind the scenes. Live. Sorta like the cricket where we hear the 4th saying things like "outside leg". Everyone knows why the decision.

Aylen explains to Roth what the replay centre's determination of the play is. Mayberry makes the initial call not Aylen.

It was the correct call.

There was contact on the leg. IMO it SHOULD have been a no-call in real-time, but as soon as it went to the replay centre and I saw the contact I knew it wasn't being overturned, which is the biggest issue with the process for me. I personally would like it to stay, but it's not as effective as it could be. Issue is magnified with referees like Mayberry who (IMO) anticipate contact rather than waiting for it when blowing the whistle far too often.

The theory behind replay centre is unless there is conclusive evidence to overturn!! So yes you'd expect this was never being overturned. But that hasn’t always seemed to be the case

The instruction to the replay centre must be "can this foul somehow be justified" rather than “should this foul have been called”.

It was just Mayberry being Mayberry. He seems to see all those contacts however can't see any contact from a Melbourne in a similar incident going the other way.

The instruction to the replay centre must be "can this foul somehow be justified" rather than "should this foul have been called".

I would like to see them introduce an "umpire's call" equivalent, where the call stands but the challenge is retained. The NFL does this a little, in that they draw the distinction between "the call is confirmed" and "the call stands," although since in that league you lose your challenge regardless of success it doesn't mean much.

Even if they don't introduce allowing the challenge to be retained on an unclear call, though, at the very least introducing that language makes it clear when they're saying "we just can't see it clearly enough to be 100% sure and overturn," which would quiet down a lot of complaints I think.