Browny
State of Origin Captain
- Apr 9, 2008
- 11,928
- 7,135
Half this thread is now TLDR
Fozz
International Captain
Senior Staff
- Mar 4, 2008
- 27,041
- 16,968
Half this thread should exist! Can we please agree to disagree and move on.
OXY-351
NRL Player
- Oct 1, 2008
- 2,168
- 875
True, and I'm sure he'll still end up having it anyway.
FTR though, I'm not really arguing that Inglis' try should or shouldn't have been awarded. I'm arguing that AP interpretation of what constitutes a penalty try is incorrect.
Besides that, we've gotta aruge about something now that we can't argue about how Norman shouldn't be in next weeks team :p
Last edited:
C
Coxy
International Captain
- Mar 4, 2008
- 31,212
- 1,886
Any further contributions to this debate will be marked under University essay assessment rules. That is, you must supply an introduction, state your position, provide your fully referenced and cited supporting facts, and provide your conclusion. Posts without a fully referenced bibliography using the Oxford referencing system will be marked an automatic zero, gain an infraction and you will be banned from attending the BHQ rec club on cheap student night.
You have been warned.
You have been warned.
Browny
State of Origin Captain
- Apr 9, 2008
- 11,928
- 7,135
Don't forget double secret probation
Anonymous person
Banned User
- Dec 16, 2008
- 4,635
- 932
i dont care anymore, and this will be my last post about it. oxy just doesnt like me and goes out of his way to argue anything against me.
some of his arguments are mind boggling.
"So now it sounds like you are chaning your argument from absolute certainty, to a some degree of certainty, albeit a high one, which is exactly how the rule should be interpreted."
if you had bothered to comprehend my post i explained what could be considered "certainty". if you went by the absolute literal definition, nothing in rugby league would be able to be classed as certain. using the 99 GF as an example, a player over the try line with the ball firmly in his grasp going to ground to put it down IS a certain try in regards to certainty in a rugby league. thats as certain as you can get IN THE RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD. like i said, you dont say he wasnt certainly going to score because an earthquake couldve happened and the ground opened up and swallowed him before he grounded it. he had the ball firmly in hand, going to put it down, got knocked out and dropped it because of that = certain to score if not for foul play. inglis wasnt over the try line. inglis wasnt in the clear. inglis didnt have a firm grasp on the ball. he didnt even finish over the try line. all that adds up to NOT certain to score, which means no penalty try.
"Commone sense? You should note that the words "common sense" are not in the rule book?"
you should also note that the rule book also states that a knock-on has to go FORWARDS from the hands, yet what seems like half of this forum believes that not to be the case and that the rules are wrong. BHQ as a whole seems to only use the rule book when it suits them. i however use it all the time, as its the rules of the game. the rules of the game cant be wrong. in this case, the rulebook says that the referee must conclude that the player WOULD have scored. the use of the word "would" implies certainty, ie the referee has to be able to say that the player was going to score a try had he not been fouled.
theres no way it was a penalty try. there was doubt about if hed score it or not had there been no early tackle therefore no penalty try. thats the way its always been, thats the way it probably always will be. refs get calls wrong all the time, as last weekend showed. just because bill harrigan says one of their wrong calls was right doesnt make it fact. he made plenty of mistakes as a referee himself, and makes plenty of mistakes with his reviews of referee performances.
"How many NRL games have you ref'd in your life?"
lol and thats when we know your clutching at straws. again, its coming back to you NOW just saying 'bill harrigan is a referee and he says it was right so its right', ignoring all the times where he has been wrong because it suits your argument.
"Anyway, continue on aguing your point. You're just proving more and more with each post that you don't understand the penatly try rule, yet your ego is obviously too big to acknowledge you may just possibly be wrong in this instance."
its funny that you throw around things like egos and a need to be right when talking about me, yet you dont seem to realise that its exactly how you are coming off too lol. again, you telling me im wrong doesnt phase me because i have the rule book on my side. people telling me that knock-ons could come backwards from the hands and that i was wrong about that didnt phase me because again, i had the rule book on my side. i understand the penalty try rule completely, its not hard to understand. you however just seem like you dont want to agree that its not a penalty try because i said its a penalty try. next youll try arguing that oldfields try was the correct decision because i said it was wrong.
anyway, thats me done for this topic. im all for a good argument, but arguing with someone who thinks 1+2=4536 is not a good argument, so im out.
some of his arguments are mind boggling.
"So now it sounds like you are chaning your argument from absolute certainty, to a some degree of certainty, albeit a high one, which is exactly how the rule should be interpreted."
if you had bothered to comprehend my post i explained what could be considered "certainty". if you went by the absolute literal definition, nothing in rugby league would be able to be classed as certain. using the 99 GF as an example, a player over the try line with the ball firmly in his grasp going to ground to put it down IS a certain try in regards to certainty in a rugby league. thats as certain as you can get IN THE RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD. like i said, you dont say he wasnt certainly going to score because an earthquake couldve happened and the ground opened up and swallowed him before he grounded it. he had the ball firmly in hand, going to put it down, got knocked out and dropped it because of that = certain to score if not for foul play. inglis wasnt over the try line. inglis wasnt in the clear. inglis didnt have a firm grasp on the ball. he didnt even finish over the try line. all that adds up to NOT certain to score, which means no penalty try.
"Commone sense? You should note that the words "common sense" are not in the rule book?"
you should also note that the rule book also states that a knock-on has to go FORWARDS from the hands, yet what seems like half of this forum believes that not to be the case and that the rules are wrong. BHQ as a whole seems to only use the rule book when it suits them. i however use it all the time, as its the rules of the game. the rules of the game cant be wrong. in this case, the rulebook says that the referee must conclude that the player WOULD have scored. the use of the word "would" implies certainty, ie the referee has to be able to say that the player was going to score a try had he not been fouled.
theres no way it was a penalty try. there was doubt about if hed score it or not had there been no early tackle therefore no penalty try. thats the way its always been, thats the way it probably always will be. refs get calls wrong all the time, as last weekend showed. just because bill harrigan says one of their wrong calls was right doesnt make it fact. he made plenty of mistakes as a referee himself, and makes plenty of mistakes with his reviews of referee performances.
"How many NRL games have you ref'd in your life?"
lol and thats when we know your clutching at straws. again, its coming back to you NOW just saying 'bill harrigan is a referee and he says it was right so its right', ignoring all the times where he has been wrong because it suits your argument.
"Anyway, continue on aguing your point. You're just proving more and more with each post that you don't understand the penatly try rule, yet your ego is obviously too big to acknowledge you may just possibly be wrong in this instance."
its funny that you throw around things like egos and a need to be right when talking about me, yet you dont seem to realise that its exactly how you are coming off too lol. again, you telling me im wrong doesnt phase me because i have the rule book on my side. people telling me that knock-ons could come backwards from the hands and that i was wrong about that didnt phase me because again, i had the rule book on my side. i understand the penalty try rule completely, its not hard to understand. you however just seem like you dont want to agree that its not a penalty try because i said its a penalty try. next youll try arguing that oldfields try was the correct decision because i said it was wrong.
anyway, thats me done for this topic. im all for a good argument, but arguing with someone who thinks 1+2=4536 is not a good argument, so im out.
Fozz
International Captain
Senior Staff
- Mar 4, 2008
- 27,041
- 16,968
TLDR
And i don't see any references. Where's the bibliography?
And i don't see any references. Where's the bibliography?
Anonymous person
Banned User
- Dec 16, 2008
- 4,635
- 932
i did IT at uni, i rarely had to do any of that stuff lol
fredie
Banned User
- Sep 28, 2008
- 378
- 14
agree . no try. who awarded the try ?? video ref
only 2 things you say might have happened ?? 100s of things might have happened . no try for me . . i have seen alot earlier tackle attempts , where no penaltys given
Twiztid
NRL Player
- Apr 14, 2009
- 1,668
- 136
I focused on the 2 most important factors and if you want to get technical you could go through every try and say there is a chance that it won't be scored at some point in there lead up.
Yeah we also see a lot of high shots too. They gave it and let's just move on.
