Super Freak
International Captain
Forum Staff
- Jan 25, 2014
- 44,120
- 33,259
- Thread starter
- #91
Lol Kyle Feldt.
You dope.
You dope.
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.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.
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?
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.
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.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.
Post-game commentary now all agreeing that it was a no try. Time for spec-savers, SF :p.
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.