Porthoz
International Captain
Senior Staff
- Feb 27, 2010
- 29,590
- 11,970
I have no doubt Hayne lost contact and thus control of the ball, before it touched the ground.
I have no doubt Hayne lost contact and thus control of the ball, before it touched the ground.
No replay supports that because no replay shows separation, even the reverse angle.
Some people need to go to specsavers, and some people need to brush up on the rules. People are also failing to know that you can score with your wrist.
I suppose you thought the Slater drop-kick try was fine as well, right?
If you're going to try and follow rules to the letter and apply absolutely zero logic, common sense or Rugby League knowledge, things are going to get real dicey.
Hayne's one has a been a no-try for 100 years.
So am I. Those are words to live by!It’s a common ailment of the young, to confuse winning an argument with being correct. I’ve only recently learnt this, and some might argue that I’m still learning it.
You're confusing not seeing something with seeing something. In this case, unlike the Feldt try, none of the images can confirm he maintains contact all the way through, so there is no conclusive evidence either way.No replay supports that because no replay shows separation, even the reverse angle.
Some people need to go to specsavers, and some people need to brush up on the rules. People are also failing to know that you can score with your wrist.
You're confusing not seeing something with seeing something. In this case, unlike the Feldt try, none of the images can confirm he maintains contact all the way through, so there is no conclusive evidence either way.
I wish we had a camera behind the goal with the right angle to show what happened at this moment, or we could perhaps just remove Cooper's arm :p
View attachment 3149
I'm not going to keep arguing about this with you, but in my opinion, he lost the contact with, and control of the ball there.
Yes it is, sorry... wrong post quoted.Assume this is directed at SF, because I agree
It’s a common ailment of the young, to confuse winning an argument with being correct. I’ve only recently learnt this, and some might argue that I’m still learning it.
I thought the rules were changed to include that a player must have control of the ball when scoring a try? Not sure why I think this but there's a 97.4278% chance that I'm wrong.You're sounding more and more like someone else on here.
There is no argument to win. The rules are clear. Feel free to argue whether there is separation - if there is, it's a no try. Otherwise, it's a try.
I thought the rules were changed to include that a player must have control of the ball when scoring a try? Not sure why I think this but there's a 97.4278% chance that I'm wrong.
Regardless, I don't believe that Hayne had control of the ball when he scored but can understand why it was awarded as there was insufficient evidence to overrule.
Yeah, I was wrong. Stop rubbing it in goddamnit!if there is no separation then it is deemed to be a try ...
if there is separation, then the player must regain control of the ball before it hit the ground for it to be a try
Can we get back to talking about how bad the cowboys are now?