Game 1 - Post Match Discussion

[mrslong]

In Tate we Trust.:rockon:

 

[Jeba]

If it was Farah's hand that played at the ball there would be no arguments against it being a try. Can't see why that has to be any different just because it was foot instead of hand.

 

[ningnangnong]

Can someone dig out the actual rule for playing at the ball when an opposition player has possession?

Getting sick of some of the shit NSW supporters are coming out with on another forum.

 

[thedman]

Here is Bill's official views on all the calls - http://www.nrl.com/official-view-in...arrigan/tabid/11019/newsid/67633/default.aspx

"Referees co-coach Bill Harrigan answers your most frequently asked questions from State of Origin Game One.

What did you think about the decision to sin-bin NSW centre Michael Jennings?

I fully support this decision. Michael Jennings ran from a distance and threw a punch that connected and was rightly sin-binned. Matt Scott was cautioned by the referee and was told that he was lucky to stay on the field after throwing the ball at Greg Bird and starting the melee. Had he been sin-binned, I would have been happy with that decision as well.

Could Cameron Smith have been penalised for collecting Akuila Uate high in a tackle?

This was purely accidental, Uate fell into Cameron Smith and in the game of rugby league there is always accidental contact.

What are your thoughts on the lifting tackle by NSW forward Greg Bird, should it have earned a penalty?

No, it should have been play on. It was a good, hard tackle.

Could Jarryd Hayne have been penalised for striking Johnathan Thurston while in possession of the ball?

Yes, he could have been.

What did you think about the decision to award Greg Inglis a try in the 72nd minute?

Greg Ingis had possession of the ball and was trying to ground the ball. Robbie Farah, in desperation to prevent the try, changed his running gate and threw his leg out. In doing so, he dislodged the ball, so therefore it is deemed that he played at the ball. The ball is still live.

It does rebound off Greg Inglis’s forearm after it was dislodged, but he did not play at it, it was a rebound and then he grounded the ball.

For these reasons, I agree with the decision to award a try."

Agree with them all, except Bird's lifting tackle - looked beyond the horizontal to me

 

[ethos]

It does rebound off Greg Inglis’s forearm after it was dislodged, but he did not play at it, it was a rebound and then he grounded the ball.

That bit doesn't sit well with me though.

After the ball leaves Inglis's hands, surely every movement he makes from that point onwards is an attempt to regain possession or at least get his hands on the ball. Therefore, he's playing at it?

 

[Fozz]

Given the whole 5cm distance the ball travelled to his forearms, I don't think Inglis even had time to react. His arms didn't change position after the ball was kicked out by Farah.

 

[thedman]

If you watch it again, he gets the ball kicked out of his hands into his forearm, he doesn't attempt to regain possession until the ball is on the ground and he dives on it and scores. Same as if someone kicks the ball into the opposition's hand in general play, they wouldn't rule it a knock on as it wasn't played at.

 

[Big Pete]

I hope Harrigan changes the ruling.

I don't think a player should lead with the boot AT ALL to prevent a try.

Strip rulings are messy, might need some fine tuning.

 

[Coxy]

Given the whole 5cm distance the ball travelled to his forearms, I don't think Inglis even had time to react. His arms didn't change position after the ball was kicked out by Farah.

Exactly. It's virtually a chargedown scenario.

 

[Anonymous person]

I hope Harrigan changes the ruling.

I don't think a player should lead with the boot AT ALL to prevent a try.

Strip rulings are messy, might need some fine tuning.

leading with the foot is illegal in the NRL now, but it seems that it must not be in State of Origin as they go by different rules iirc. but if leading with the foot is legal in Origin, why was Thurston penalised and NSW awarded a penalty try in 09 for it?

thats what i dont understand - they got the ruling 100% right, but noone seems to be mentioning the fact that youre not allowed to kick at the ball?

anyway, good to see Hollywood back the refs up on all but the smallest of the "controversial" calls. theres no doubt that Bird lifted above the horizontal though, it was plain as day. good hard tackle? yep. legal by the rule book? nope.

 

[Coxy]

Here's video of the 2009 incident:

 

[QUEENSLANDER]

Here's video of the 2009 incident:

but thurston, like farah, didnt change the direction he was running so its ok right?!!!

 

[Big Pete]

Wolfman's try wasn't a penalty try, but an 8 point try. Didn't agree with that ruling at all because he clearly loses it while attempting to score but whatevs, refs. had a shocker that night.

I don't think anyone is clear about what the rules are. Judging on what commentators have been saying and what Harrigan said, it's only deemed illegal IF it's believed to be dangerous contact (aka you make contact with the player). Farah only made contact with the ball, hence it was fair play.

But that doesn't seem consistent. I recall Slater gave away a penalty try against the Broncos in R9 2010 which was pretty much identical.

Either way, refs. need to do something here.

 

[Browny]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8702Im2P18

Tat's highlight package ;)

 

[Professor47]

Wolfman's try wasn't a penalty try, but an 8 point try. Didn't agree with that ruling at all because he clearly loses it while attempting to score but whatevs, refs. had a shocker that night.

I don't think anyone is clear about what the rules are. Judging on what commentators have been saying and what Harrigan said, it's only deemed illegal IF it's believed to be dangerous contact (aka you make contact with the player). Farah only made contact with the ball, hence it was fair play.

But that doesn't seem consistent. I recall Slater gave away a penalty try against the Broncos in R9 2010 which was pretty much identical.

Either way, refs. need to do something here.

100%.
Surely there was to be a hard and fast rule on this. I just think there should be no kicking allowed to stop a try. Harsh but it is the only way to prevent any really dangerous stuff from happening. If you do it should be penalty try.
Allowed to slide under, slide in and use thighs and what not but no 'kicking' motions.

 

[ethos]

Exactly. It's virtually a chargedown scenario.

A chargedown is considered playing at the ball..

I don't want to debate technicalities and end up sounding like AP but a charge down is still considered playing at the ball even though the player may not necessarily have time to move his arms in the direction of the ball. Same deal when players go in for a tackle with the arms, the attacker passes and the ball hits the arms of the defender who is making the tackle - often ruled as playing at the ball even though the defender wouldn't have had time to consciously move his arms in the direction of the ball.

To my mind, Inglis, through the whole fumbling movement (of just a second or so), was always in the process of playing at the ball.

Can still understand the ruling though. As long as they're consistent, which we know they won't be. So there's no real point anyway..

 

[Ari Gold]

Did Farah really kick at the ball though? It seems to me more like he just moved his foot so it was in the way of Inglis, whereas Thurston's is more trying to actually kick the ball. Either way, watching the replays of both, Thurston's attempt has a definite follow through and to me is conceivable dangerous. Farah had no follow through and at no point do I really think what he's done is dangerous.

 

[Anonymous person]

A chargedown is considered playing at the ball..
I don't want to debate technicalities and end up sounding like AP but a charge down is still considered playing at the ball even though the player may not necessarily have time to move his arms in the direction of the ball.
....
*Same deal when players go in for a tackle with the arms, the attacker passes and the ball hits the arms of the defender who is making the tackle - often ruled as playing at the ball even though the defender wouldn't have had time to consciously move his arms in the direction of the ball.*..

you seem to be forgetting that a charge down is NOT a knock on, therefore its STILL a try.

on your second point, passes and kicks are completely different scenarios. when you go to make a tackle you are deemed to be playing at the ball at all times now (i think this rule was introduced this season). if you hit the ball making a tackle, its a knock-on if it goes forwards from you. not so from a charged-down kick.