POST GAME Game 3 - NSW vs QLD

Discussion in 'State of Origin 2016' started by Unbreakable, Jul 13, 2016.

  1. Dexter

    Dexter

    4,690
    1,644
    So the only ones who think it should have been a try ( besides NSW team ) are the refs. No wonder confusion reigns in the bunker. They capitulated under pressure from coaches and the media re black and white rulings on obstructions with the block runners and now they are letting them think for themselves regarding other areas.

    Like some other things this year they have opened the door for that to be the norm after ruling black and white all last year and so far this year.
    Didn't Qld have one taken off us in game 3 last year when Gillett was in front but miles away from the play. It was late in the game IIRC .

    I can't find it but if anyone can be bothered it would be good to compare.
     
  2. ivanhungryjak

    ivanhungryjak NRL Captain

    Watch the Archer crap I linked in the other thread, he tries to justify it there and shows the vision.
     
    Dexter likes this.
  3. Cult3

    Cult3 State of Origin Captain

    8,352
    5,151
    How does one single-handedly do anything with help from someone?
     
    Archer used the Gillett play as a point in comparison. Since Gillett touched the ball, he was involved in the play.

    I would have to see other instances to know whether or not it's consistent. If that's the interpretation, I'm OK with it since Jennings never made any contact with the football or obstructed a defender. If anything, his presence should have motivated O'Neil to chase harder.

    My biggest issue last night with the call is that I don't recall the active/passive interpretation existing. However, it supposedly does under Section 14 (2) and they define it on the video.
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2016
    Dexter likes this.
  4. Crusers taste the same through a straw...
     
  5. holdzy89

    holdzy89 NRL Captain

    3,590
    2,124
    For all the penalties QLD gave away, they were entitled to as many because NSW did EXACTLY the same thing, but were not penalized. That would have been a classic game if not for incompetent refs. Seriously, how good was that QLD defence leading up to half time? NSW had the ball for like 10 minutes.
     
  6. Foordy

    Foordy

    16,392
    7,254
    For the last decade tries have been denied when an offside player has been 9m away from the play but dimply took a few steps forward, they have actually been fairly consistent on this ruling (until last night) ... Archer himself has denied tries for this reason.

    In this instance an offside player actually chases the ball.

    Conspiracy theory time... The NRL are desperate for the bunker to be seen as a success that they have instructed the refs boss to back all decisions they make, no matter what. Especially after Greenturds statement that said the bunker would get 100% of the decisions right
     
  7. Sproj

    Sproj

    13,869
    6,508
    It's a conundrum, a tragic, tragic conundrum.
     
  8. Dexter

    Dexter

    4,690
    1,644

    I can't see how Jennings doesn't interfere with O'Neill. He actively pursues the ball and jostles with O'Neill, as Fittler said last night "there's nothing passive about what Jennings did"? I guess by running toward the ball that way Jennings clear intention was to participate in the play, therefore penalty Qld.

    I had no idea about the active/passive interpretation ever being mentioned by anyone before and Cam Smith certainly knew nothing about it either. I wonder how many coaches, players and commentators were aware and when.
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2016
  9. Jennings was in the vicinity but in order to be considered active, I assume he would had either made contact with the ball or impeded O'Neil. Jennings never touched the ball in that passage and O'Neil had the inside line, he didn't have to run around Jennings at any point.

    As far as players and such not knowing the rule, it's such a rare occurance that I'm sure it just slipped everyone's radar. It was like when Moylan took the kick dead against the Broncos last year or the Reynolds field goal penalty from last year, the rule was in place, but since it rarely comes up it comes off as a spur of the moment decision.

    And again, I can live with the call. I can remember when it was black and white, it was awful and robbed teams on several occassions. That's going back over a decade, so I'm glad that a distinction has been made between an active and passive participant.
     
  10. ivanhungryjak

    ivanhungryjak NRL Captain

    I can live with active and passive but there is no way on Gods green earth that Jennings was passive in that play.
    Passive is strictly taking no part in the play, eg, playing the ball and then standing still, realising you're offside and either stopping or stepping backwards. Running towards the ball is not passive.
     
    Foordy likes this.
  11. Wolfie

    Wolfie State of Origin Rep

    5,160
    3,076
    Hayne hasnt dominated at origin level though. Fair enough, he has played well in a few games, and if you define a dominant player as one who has only done it in a game or two then thats fine. I find the NSW press bigs up decent NSW performances into something they are not personally, like that game gallen had amazing stats in a few years ago when he was playing under the influence of peptides. If our boys were NSWelshmen we would be hearing from the rats and filth down south that they were the greatest sports team of all time. Players like Smith, Wally and JT have dominated origin football. Hayne is nowhere near that level. He needs to do a hell of a lot more consitently to be up there with those guys.

    I also did say the you COULD say Tedesco was easily contained, not it was a fact. I do personally think we coped with him pretty easily. HE is a decent player, but he isnt as good as some would have us believe yet. I would comfortably put Munster on a par with him.
     
  12. I bleed Maroon

    I bleed Maroon State of Origin Rep

    6,537
    3,780
    When even the NSW nuffies on LU have to basically openly troll in order to defend that shit last night, you know it was a trainwreck. Sutton, Archer and Cummins are literally cancer.
     
  13. BRC088

    BRC088 QCup Player

    341
    111
    Does Daley still want them sacked?
     
  14. Broncoman

    Broncoman State of Origin Rep

    Hayne was dominant in that 2009 series if it wasn't for him QLD would've won those first 2 games by cricket scores. He was the difference in 2014 imo, his performance in Game 1 that year was the stuff of a truly great player. He should've been man of the series. He was a great player for NSW and Australia.
     
  15. Dugan Moylan Tedesco Beefcake HAYNE is the future!!

    Stick with one you spineless cockroaches. :laugh:
     
    LittleDavey83 and ivanhungryjak like this.
  16. Culhwch

    Culhwch QCup Player

    704
    435
    Yep, this. It's basically putting the onus on the defending player to know that the opposition player is in an offside position, and can therefore be ignored. Ridiculous ruling.
     
    Sproj likes this.
  17. Cult3

    Cult3 State of Origin Captain

    8,352
    5,151
    I bet you think he achieved everything there was to achieve in rugby league too?
     
  18. ...for the record, you're referring to Shayne, right?

    The bloke who allowed Barrett to break Inglis' jaw with a dog shot and decided a penalty was sufficient, that Hayne right?

    Because otherwise the Maroons were going to piss four in a row in no sweat. A w(h)inger wasn't going to have that much of a bearing.
     
    Last year in the Preliminary Final, Sutton went to the video ref for the Boyd try to see if any of the players in front of the kicker put pressure on SKD. To see if they had an impact on the play.

    If they did, was it going to be a try?

    The offside player does not need to make contact with the player or ball for it to be called back.

    Different interpretation, no consistency.
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2016
    gordjw likes this.

Share This Page

Loading...