Grand final match thread.

[Anonymous person]

all it comes down to is that blind freddy could see that soward played at the ball, and in doing so caused it to come loose. under the rules, thats a rake, and is play on.

the fact that he played at it with his legs meant it shouldve been a penalty try instead of play on.

yes, the rules are rubbish. yes, they need to be changed.

but under the rules, there is no possible way that it could have been no try.

 

[Coxy]

Wrong. It Could've been ruled no try. Harrigan could've explained it. And while 50% of people would argue with him, they would also say "right on, the rule is shit anyway!".

 

[Coxy]

REVEALED! The transcripts of the respective half time speeches from the two coaches.

Wayne Bennett: Deep breaths. Close your eyes. Let the last 40 minutes go. We made too many mistakes. We gave them too much possession. The referees gave them a try they didn't deserve. They had all the ball after that. And yet we held them. For 29 weeks we have played with control, certain that our defence will hold if we don't give away too much possession. That will still work in this last 40 minutes. The game starts again. Start from scratch. Do what we've been doing all year. Build it. It will come. Get out there boys!

Brian Smith: OMG OMG OMG! We're in front! OMG OMG OMG! I've never been in front at half time in a Grand Final! OMG OMG OMG! Don't **** it up boys! Please! This is my chance against that spin doctor next door. OMG OMG OMG! I've been waiting for 17 years to show up this tall bean pole of a scumbag that I'm better than him. Don't **** it up for me. Todd, you hear me? Don't **** it up! You got it? Don't **** up! None of you! Or you're cut! You're all cut! Go out there! Do it! OMG OMG OMG I need more chewy.

 

[Anonymous person]

Wrong. It Could've been ruled no try. Harrigan could've explained it. And while 50% of people would argue with him, they would also say "right on, the rule is shit anyway!".

it couldve incorrectly been ruled a no try.

by the rules, there is no way it could be disallowed.

 

[Coxy]

Wrong. It Could've been ruled no try. Harrigan could've explained it. And while 50% of people would argue with him, they would also say "right on, the rule is shit anyway!".

it couldve incorrectly been ruled a no try.

by the rules, there is no way it could be disallowed.

No, because the rule has at its basis a requirement that Soward deliberately attempted to dislodge the ball. An argument could be put forward that he tried to get his foot between the ball and the ground, while not actually striking at the ball.

In which case, no try, knock on would be the ruling.

Striking at/playing at the ball is entirely subjective.

 

[Anonymous person]

No, because the rule has at its basis a requirement that Soward deliberately attempted to dislodge the ball. An argument could be put forward that he tried to get his foot between the ball and the ground, while not actually striking at the ball.

In which case, no try, knock on would be the ruling.

Striking at/playing at the ball is entirely subjective.

iirc though, attempting to stop the ball from getting to the ground is considered playing at the ball. trying to stop someone promoting the ball by getting under the ball is playing at the ball.

 

[Coxy]

No, because the rule has at its basis a requirement that Soward deliberately attempted to dislodge the ball. An argument could be put forward that he tried to get his foot between the ball and the ground, while not actually striking at the ball.

In which case, no try, knock on would be the ruling.

Striking at/playing at the ball is entirely subjective.

iirc though, attempting to stop the ball from getting to the ground is considered playing at the ball. trying to stop someone promoting the ball by getting under the ball is playing at the ball.

In which case every time a player was held up it should be 6 more tackles...that doesn't make sense.

 

[Anonymous person]

In which case every time a player was held up it should be 6 more tackles...that doesn't make sense.

no, that means that every time a player had the ball raked from him in a tackle while trying to score its play on - which it is. when youre held up the ball doesnt come loose, so why would it be 6 more tackles?

 

[Coxy]

irc though, attempting to stop the ball from getting to the ground is considered playing at the ball. trying to stop someone promoting the ball by getting under the ball is playing at the ball.

That's the definition of trying to hold someone up!

By definition, therefore, you could be held up, let the ball go and get 6 more tackles, because the guy holding you up "played at the ball" and you "lost" it.

 

[Anonymous person]

irc though, attempting to stop the ball from getting to the ground is considered playing at the ball. trying to stop someone promoting the ball by getting under the ball is playing at the ball.

That's the definition of trying to hold someone up!

By definition, therefore, you could be held up, let the ball go and get 6 more tackles, because the guy holding you up "played at the ball" and you "lost" it.

if the guy doing the holding up comes into contact with the ball and it comes loose, sure - which soward did regardless of if you think he kicked at the ball or not. he made contact with it, it came loose.

 

[Nashy]

It was ruled Benefit of the doubt wasn't it?

So with that rule in play, which I think is a BS rule too, it should have been a try.

There is no way to prove if Soward was trying to kick the ball out, or genuinly trying to get his feet under it to hold it up. Hence, the decision goes to the attacking team.

The rules maybe stupid, which I don't think anyone is arguing with. But following the interpretations, and rules the NRL play with, it was a try.

 

[Coxy]

It was ruled Benefit of the doubt wasn't it?

So with that rule in play, which I think is a BS rule too, it should have been a try.

There is no way to prove if Soward was trying to kick the ball out, or genuinly trying to get his feet under it to hold it up. Hence, the decision goes to the attacking team.

The rules maybe stupid, which I don't think anyone is arguing with. But following the interpretations, and rules the NRL play with, it was a try.

Nah, wasn't benefit of the doubt. It was just plain ol' try.

 

[Nashy]

Which one of BOTD?

Sorry. I was drinking a lot yesterday.

 

[Coxy]

Which one of BOTD?

Sorry. I was drinking a lot yesterday.

The Anasta try wasn't benefit of the doubt.

The Young try was.

 

[Bannermania]

I dunno, I just bang the drums and do the african face.

 

[Browny]

The point is that there were farcical decisions all game that should not have occured during the biggest game of the year.

NRL need to wake up and fix some of the rules

 

[Je$ter]

all it comes down to is that blind freddy could see that soward played at the ball, and in doing so caused it to come loose. under the rules, thats a rake, and is play on.

the fact that he played at it with his legs meant it shouldve been a penalty try instead of play on.

yes, the rules are rubbish. yes, they need to be changed.

but under the rules, there is no possible way that it could have been no try.

Leading with the legs is a penalty try. Soward already had his body wrapped up and tried to get his legs under the ball so he couldn't plant it. Is that playing at the ball? I dunno, the rules are too grey in this area and like Coxy said so many rules have been bastardised it's hard to tell sometimes.

 

[Dexter]

Personally, I think it had to be a try because there is no way the ball was coming loose unless Sowards legs dislodged it.
Common sense applied.

As far as general play is concerned the refs don't have the benefit of the video ref so have to make a call as they see it, they probably get it right 50% oif the time.