LIVE Round 14 Discussion

Dash

NRL Player
2,880
1,970
Brisbane
There was no separation. Try every day of the week.

It started to slip out, but there has to be separation for it to be a knock on.
I know the rule. The fact is he did actually drop it, which is why they looked a million times to try and prove it. One of the angles showed separation for mine, but the bunker obviously didn't think so.
 

Super Freak

International Captain
Staff
25,199
12,510
Brisbane
It squirted out the side of his hand, therefore no downward pressure. It was pretty a obvious no-try to me.

Do you have Hayne in your SVRL team by chance?
No, I don't.

No separation, hand still on the ball when it touched the ground. There isn't a rule that can deny that try.

That's been a try for a long time.
 

Tom

State of Origin Rep
6,606
5,688
I thought the rule for the last few years has been that you need control of the ball, unless of course it is in nobody's possession and on the ground.
 

soup

State of Origin Rep
6,891
4,746
No, I don't.

No separation, hand still on the ball when it touched the ground. There isn't a rule that can deny that try.

That's been a try for a long time.
Agree to disagree then. Seems I’m not the only one.
 

Super Freak

International Captain
Staff
25,199
12,510
Brisbane
I know the rule. The fact is he did actually drop it, which is why they looked a million times to try and prove it. One of the angles showed separation for mine, but the bunker obviously didn't think so.
They looked at it a million times to see why the ball came out the way it did, but every replay showed his hand on the ball the entire time.

Even if it squirts out the way it did, it doesn't matter. It can't be a knock on if his hand never leaves the ball.

There have been a lot of tries like that over the years.
 

soup

State of Origin Rep
6,891
4,746
They looked at it a million times to see why the ball came out the way it did, but every replay showed his hand on the ball the entire time.

Even if it squirts out the way it did, it doesn't matter. It can't be a knock on if his hand never leaves the ball.

There have been a lot of tries like that over the years.
Gasnier nibbles Haynes **** for fun and even he changed his opinion through the camera angles. I’m starting to wonder if ego over-rules logic.
 

Dash

NRL Player
2,880
1,970
Brisbane
They looked at it a million times to see why the ball came out the way it did, but every replay showed his hand on the ball the entire time.

Even if it squirts out the way it did, it doesn't matter. It can't be a knock on if his hand never leaves the ball.

There have been a lot of tries like that over the years.
I'm not arguing the rule. You were asking why they looked so many times. He quite clearly had zero control over the ball, which is why the bunker looked so many times to try to find any separation.
 

soup

State of Origin Rep
6,891
4,746
Post-game commentary now all agreeing that it was a no try. Time for spec-savers, SF :p.
 

Super Freak

International Captain
Staff
25,199
12,510
Brisbane
Post-game commentary now all agreeing that it was a no try. Time for spec-savers, SF :p.
I'm not the one that needs specsavers.

No separation = no knock on. It doesn't matter if the ball bounces. As Warren Smith said for the Feldt try, the ball never leaves the hands or fingers which is clear in every replay. What happens after is irrelevant.
 

soup

State of Origin Rep
6,891
4,746
I'm not the one that needs specsavers.

No separation = no knock on. It doesn't matter if the ball bounces. As Warren Smith said for the Feldt try, the ball never leaves the hands or fingers which is clear in every replay. What happens after is irrelevant.
Agree on the Feldt try, disagree (like everyone else) on the Hayne try.
 

Morkel

International Captain
Staff
20,575
16,816
The “control” rule is only if the ball leaves the hand. If there is separation, they need to regain control for it to be a try. No separation means no need for there to be control. He can follow the ball to the ground with the tip of his finger, if it never breaks contact, the moment it touches the grass it’s a try, regardless of how it spews out afterwards.

Feldt’s try was the same. Had lost “control” but there was never separation. It was even called a “no try” on-field but video ref overturned it because of the rules above.
 

Tom

State of Origin Rep
6,606
5,688
No try imo. You need control.
Also Thurston does a plain as day shoulder charge on the Jennings try at about 2:11. Let's see if the MRC have anything to say....doubt it.

 

soup

State of Origin Rep
6,891
4,746
The “control” rule is only if the ball leaves the hand. If there is separation, they need to regain control for it to be a try. No separation means no need for there to be control. He can follow the ball to the ground with the tip of his finger, if it never breaks contact, the moment it touches the grass it’s a try, regardless of how it spews out afterwards.

Feldt’s try was the same. Had lost “control” but there was never separation. It was even called a “no try” on-field but video ref overturned it because of the rules above.
The difference is, Feldt had his hand on top of the ball ( or fingers at least), while Hayne had his hand beside the ball. The distortion (compression of space) of the camera lense made it look closer than it was. It was plain as day to everyone, bar the video ref, that he knocked it on.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create free account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Login or Register

Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Register now

Twitter

Top