Grand final match thread.

[Aeetee]

Ok, what if said incident happened back at the 50 and say was the 2nd game of the season. Would it have been a strip or a knock on?

it wouldnt have happened there, as he wouldnt have been reaching out to score and soward wouldnt have been trying to stop a try with his legs.

if it did for some reason, it would be a strip.

I knew you would say that, lets say.... just for shits and giggles him reaching out was the result of him falling funny. And if it was a strip as you think it would be. Wouldn't that be ok, thought you could strip the ball while a player was scoring a try?

 

[Anonymous person]

I knew you would say that, lets say.... just for shits and giggles him reaching out was the result of him falling funny. And if it was a strip as you think it would be. Wouldn't that be ok, thought you could strip the ball while a player was scoring a try?

you can - but youre not allowed to play at the ball with your legs, and if you rake the ball with your legs youre playing at it. which is what soward did. hence it should have been a penalty try.

 

[Coxy]

Therefore every player who tries to hold up the attacking player by getting their legs under and around the ball is breaking the rules and should from now on be a penalty try?

LOLZ

 

[Aeetee]

I think the rule leans more towards striking at the ball ie Slater. And if we wanna get tech, what about Mini on Nightingales... second try I think it was. That was more striking/sliding/'raking' than Sowards was.

IMO if it had happened on the half way it would have been a knock on.

 

[Coxy]

I think the rule leans more towards striking at the ball ie Slater. And if we wanna get tech, what about Mini on Nightingales... second try I think it was. That was more striking/sliding/'raking' than Sowards was.

IMO if it had happened on the half way it would have been a knock on.

It was a knock on. Even in goal. The Soward incident is nothing like what they brought the rule in about Slater for. As you say, the Minichiello one was more like it, and had he been closer to Nightingale's head it would've been an 8 point try.

 

[Nashy]

AP is right. It doesn't matter if you agree with the rules or not, the rules are the rules. And Soward, deliberately, intentionally, purposely, whatever word you want to use, kicked at the ball to dislodge it.

Therfore, it's a rake. And the try should have been awarded. The right decision was made.

 

[Coxy]

AP is right. It doesn't matter if you agree with the rules or not, the rules are the rules. And Soward, deliberately, intentionally, purposely, whatever word you want to use, kicked at the ball to dislodge it.

Therfore, it's a rake. And the try should have been awarded. The right decision was made.

You will find no such rule in the rule book.

 

[Nashy]

Are you talking about the Rugby League rule book, or the NRL rule book. Because you'll also find nothing about 2 refs on the field in the rule book either, meaning the game wasn't legal.

 

[QUEENSLANDER]

AP is right. It doesn't matter if you agree with the rules or not, the rules are the rules. And Soward, deliberately, intentionally, purposely, whatever word you want to use, kicked at the ball to dislodge it.

Therfore, it's a rake. And the try should have been awarded. The right decision was made.

You will find no such rule in the rule book.

but there is a rule about deliberately raking the ball from the opponents grasp in the ingoals, which is what happened

 

[Aeetee]

But I thought that was legal?

 

[QUEENSLANDER]

But I thought that was legal?

which is exactly what they ruled, and thats why it was a try...........

they had to go with either a penalty try for stripping with the legs OR rule he stripped it legally and allow play on. Either way it was a try so i dont see the big hassle with it

 

[Coxy]

Under the ridiculous NRL interpretations you could argue it was a try. The interpretations are wrong. Just as the interpretation about "no separation" even if you have lost control of the ball but managed to keep a fingernail on it. That's laughable too.

Leilua's was a knock on, and I really hope the new ref's coach sees that it was a preposterous decision and such tries can never be awarded again.

And I would like one rule in the rule book itself to be removed - and that's about the ball being able to be grounded with any part of the body above the waist.

 

[QUEENSLANDER]

Under the ridiculous NRL interpretations you could argue it was a try. The interpretations are wrong. Just as the interpretation about "no separation" even if you have lost control of the ball but managed to keep a fingernail on it. That's laughable too.

Leilua's was a knock on, and I really hope the new ref's coach sees that it was a preposterous decision and such tries can never be awarded again.

And I would like one rule in the rule book itself to be removed - and that's about the ball being able to be grounded with any part of the body above the waist.

hey, ull get no argument from me that the rule is pathetic. i think what soward did was perfectly fine, and it should be up to the guy with the ball to hold on to it, but as you just said, under the NRL interpretations, it was right. the refs need to stop using black and white rules and start putting logic and context into them. what soward did was against the rules in regards to using his legs, but it wasnt dangerous by any means. nor was it a "strip" realistically, but the current crop of refs dont use common sense, they just use black and white rules, and in this case this happened to mean a try no matter which decision they chose

 

[Coxy]

I think even under current interpretations Harrigan could've disallowed the try and ruled a 20m restart. Could easily say Soward was trying to get his legs under the ball to hold him up, and the Roosters player lost it, rather than (as he did rule) Soward deliberately tried to dislodge the ball. IMO would've been a fair result.

I hate how we don't put any onus on the tryscorer to exhibit control of the footy. It's dumb.

 

[Aeetee]

But you could also agree that the player scoring didn't have good ball security. how many time have you seen a player get up to play the ball, opposition knocks it or his arm and the guy with the ball gets told he knocked it on because of poor ball security.

 

[Coxy]

But you could also agree that the player scoring didn't have good ball security. how many time have you seen a player get up to play the ball, opposition knocks it or his arm and the guy with the ball gets told he knocked it on because of poor ball security.

Saw it with Creagh late in the first half. Copped a big hit from Nuuasala and then another bloke bumped his arm and he lost the ball...ref ruled he lost it.

That's the key. Soward should've kicked his elbow.

 

[QUEENSLANDER]

But you could also agree that the player scoring didn't have good ball security. how many time have you seen a player get up to play the ball, opposition knocks it or his arm and the guy with the ball gets told he knocked it on because of poor ball security.

Saw it with Creagh late in the first half. Copped a big hit from Nuuasala and then another bloke bumped his arm and he lost the ball...ref ruled he lost it.

That's the key. Soward should've kicked his elbow.

that Creagh call couldve gone the other way very easily, and possibly shouldve

 

[Coxy]

But you could also agree that the player scoring didn't have good ball security. how many time have you seen a player get up to play the ball, opposition knocks it or his arm and the guy with the ball gets told he knocked it on because of poor ball security.

Saw it with Creagh late in the first half. Copped a big hit from Nuuasala and then another bloke bumped his arm and he lost the ball...ref ruled he lost it.

That's the key. Soward should've kicked his elbow.

that Creagh call couldve gone the other way very easily, and possibly shouldve

I agree, but generally they seem to put some responsibility on the ball carrier (loose carry) to retain control.
Yet as soon as it goes ingoal and they're trying to score, loose carries and responsibility on the ball carrier are completely out the window.