Finals Week 2 Discussion

My brother made an interesting point in our first recaps of the game. He is a Raiders supporter so is still a bit cut.

Would it have been a penalty try for them? If it happened identically with Ferguson in place of Inglis and McQueen taking him out the same way. I honestly don't think they would have.
 
Broncoman said:
100% Agree with that ruling. Smith was clearly going to get the ball down and score and Jamie Ainscough came and collared him high forcing him to lose the ball.
Click to expand...

Players have dropped balls in the past when grounding them though, haven't they? While the likelyhood of this is low, it's not non-existent, so therefore no penalty try.
 
Big Pete said:
The problem I have is consistency.
Click to expand...

I fully agree, but how are you ever going to get consistency when the ruling allows for an "opinion" on something that didn't happen. It's probably the only rule in the game where you are asking someone to rule on something that didn't happen. Other than getting rid of the rule completely (which imo could lead to other issues), I'm not sure how it could ever be made consistent.
 
OXY-351 said:
Being in a position to make an illegal tackle isn't the same as being in the position to make a legal try saving tackle on a guy who is accelerating away from you 5m out from the try line. Sure it's not a certainty he would have scored, but I'd back him to score in that situation 99 times out of a 100.
Click to expand...

did you actually see the tackle? he was in the position to make a legal try saving tackle, and there is absolutely no doubt that he wouldve tackled him even after he caught the ball. what is debatable though is if he wouldve been able to stop the try or not. i think your memory about just how early the tackle was is a bit hazy. watch it again. id say it was probably a quarter of a second to half a second early. he easily wouldve tackled him anyway. its not like it was george rose chasing him, it was blake ferguson. and despite what some have been saying, no, inglis didnt end up over the try line - he actually finished up just in front of the try line.
 
If Ferguson could have made a legal tackle and thought he could stop Inglis then why did he choose to make an illegal tackle?

Inglis was pulling away from him, that's why, he maybe could have had a swipe at his legs no way could he have stopped him from going over the line the only unknown IMO is if he holds the ball and grounds it.
 
Dexter said:
If Ferguson could have made a legal tackle and thought he could stop Inglis then why did he choose to make an illegal tackle?

Inglis was pulling away from him, that's why, he maybe could have had a swipe at his legs no way could he have stopped him from going over the line the only unknown IMO is if he holds the ball and grounds it.
Click to expand...

also theres the fact that ferguson was chasing him from behind and to the side with a highly obscured view of the ball carrier. he knew that it was 2 on 1 on the fullback, he knew that the most likely option for the ball carrier was to pass it to inglis, so he tackled him when he thought inglis would get the ball - and he was only a tiny fraction of a second off.

do you seriously think that in that extra fraction of a second inglis wouldve been out of reach of ferguson, who brought him down with a tackle around the shoulders? im sorry but i just dont see it. and again, inglis didnt even make it over the try line as it is.

think about it this way - if this happened on the 20m line would you give it a penalty try? by your summary of it inglis wouldve gone through basically untouched had ferguson not tackled him illegally, and with no other defenders within tackling distance inglis wouldve run the extra 15m and scored. youd be happy with that being awarded a penalty try? what about if it happened on the 30m line? again, no other defenders near him, and since its inglis you assume they wouldnt run him down. how far can we go back before we assume that he wouldnt have scored? 50m?
 
It feels so unnatural to continue to agree with AP...although this argument is getting a bit tired. Might as well just agree to disagree by now, surely?
 
Anonymous person said:
also theres the fact that ferguson was chasing him from behind and to the side with a highly obscured view of the ball carrier. he knew that it was 2 on 1 on the fullback, he knew that the most likely option for the ball carrier was to pass it to inglis, so he tackled him when he thought inglis would get the ball - and he was only a tiny fraction of a second off.

do you seriously think that in that extra fraction of a second inglis wouldve been out of reach of ferguson, who brought him down with a tackle around the shoulders? im sorry but i just dont see it. and again, inglis didnt even make it over the try line as it is.

think about it this way - if this happened on the 20m line would you give it a penalty try? by your summary of it inglis wouldve gone through basically untouched had ferguson not tackled him illegally, and with no other defenders within tackling distance inglis wouldve run the extra 15m and scored. youd be happy with that being awarded a penalty try? what about if it happened on the 30m line? again, no other defenders near him, and since its inglis you assume they wouldnt run him down. how far can we go back before we assume that he wouldnt have scored? 50m?
Click to expand...

No I would not be happy to call it a penalty try from 20m out because he could have ankle tapped him and then another player come in but from 6 - 7m out I'm more than happy to call it penalty try.
Coxy, instinct is spot on, his instinct was he couldn't get him so he had to go early, all the Canberra players knew it as well.

We won't agree so happy to leave it there
 
Anonymous person said:
did you actually see the tackle? he was in the position to make a legal try saving tackle, and there is absolutely no doubt that he wouldve tackled him even after he caught the ball. what is debatable though is if he wouldve been able to stop the try or not. i think your memory about just how early the tackle was is a bit hazy. watch it again. id say it was probably a quarter of a second to half a second early. he easily wouldve tackled him anyway. its not like it was george rose chasing him, it was blake ferguson. and despite what some have been saying, no, inglis didnt end up over the try line - he actually finished up just in front of the try line.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing that he wouldn't have been able to tackle him. I'm arguing that the odds he would have been able to tackle him in a manner to prevent the try were low enough to warrant a penalty try. The odds don't have to be 0 for a penalty try to be awarded.

Based on your figures of .5 of a second too early and 5m out from the line, if you assume that Greg Inlgis could cover the 100m in around 12 seconds, and that he was close to full speed, then he'd cover over 4m in that time, leaving him 1m from the line. Given that situation, how many times do you think a defender tackling someone from the rear is going to pull of a try saving tackle?

You seem to be basing your argument that because it's not absolutely certain that a try would have been scored then it shouldn't be a penalty try. If you think there was too much doubt, then fine, I can actually understand that point of view, but that's not what you were arguing orginally. As per some previous arguments, you seem to think your knowledge of the rules are superior to everyone else here, when in this case I think it's clear that they aren't.
 
lets just hope this silly penalty try dont happen in next 3 games
 
Last edited:
Anonymous person said:
and despite what some have been saying, no, inglis didnt end up over the try line - he actually finished up just in front of the try line.
Click to expand...

He finished well over the try line......ftr

That said, he could have bounced the put down. No-one can say for certainty GI would have scored

oh....'cept the NFI video refs
 
Dexter said:
We won't agree so happy to leave it there
Click to expand...

Same here. In the interests of stopping the argument, I'll let AP have the final say cause I know he'll just keep on arguing until he gets it anway.

Out of interest AP, had Ferguson not tackled Inlgis early, but tackled him in a legal tackle as soon as he caught the ball, given the situation, what do you think would have eventuated?
 
OXY-351 said:
Same here. In the interests of stopping the argument, I'll let AP have the final say cause I know he'll just keep on arguing until he gets it anway.

Out of interest AP, had Ferguson not tackled Inlgis early, but tackled him in a legal tackle as soon as he caught the ball, given the situation, what do you think would have eventuated?
Click to expand...
anything could of happened
 
New Posts

Unread

Watch

YouTube
0 0 538
1:32:21
NSWRL Round 10, 1991 - Brisbane Broncos vs Cronulla Sharks
View full media list »

Active Now

  • Broncosgirl
  • Morkel
  • thenry
  • Rambstien
  • Foordy
  • davidp
  • kiwibronco
  • 1910
  • something
  • Xzei
  • Harry Sack
  • BroncosAlways
  • Johnny92
  • Behind enemy lines
  • bert_lifts
  • ChewThePhatt
  • Wolfie
... and 3 more.
Total: 76 (members: 23, guests: 53)
Robots: 293
Top
  AdBlock Message
Please consider adding BHQ to your Adblock Whitelist. We do our best to make sure it doesn't affect your experience on the website, and the funds help us pay server and software costs.