LIVE Round 14 Discussion

Super Freak

International Captain
Staff
25,199
12,510
Brisbane
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.
 

soup

State of Origin Rep
6,891
4,746
I have no doubt Hayne lost contact and thus control of the ball, before it touched the ground.
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.
 

Super Freak

International Captain
Staff
25,199
12,510
Brisbane
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.
 

Unbreakable

International Rep
Staff
14,629
11,028
27.4° S, 153.0° E
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.
 

Super Freak

International Captain
Staff
25,199
12,510
Brisbane
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.
No, I don't think it was fine. Because the ball bounced twice.

The rules say it's a try, so therefore it's a try. I'm not sure how no separation means no knock on isn't common sense. That's why Feldt's try was awarded, because it never came away from the hand or fingers and that's why Hayne's try was awarded because it never came away from his hand or fingers. His wrist was also on the top part of the ball.

I'm not sure how people can say Feldt's was fine but Hayne's wasn't. If Hayne didn't have control, then neither did Feldt. Both of them bounced after being scored.

As for the try being a no-try for 100 years, that kind of try has been awarded a lot over that 100 years. Matt Duffie has scored a couple of those.
 

Porthoz

International Captain
Staff
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

upload_2018-6-10_0-18-10.png

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.
 
Last edited:

Unbreakable

International Rep
Staff
14,629
11,028
27.4° S, 153.0° E
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.
Assume this is directed at SF, because I agree
 

Fozz

International Rep
Staff
Some of you may have noticed a new feature ( soup soup ) called Shoutbox in the live chat forums.

It's a new chat feature for live game discussion, please keep in mind that the same rules apply in the chat as for the forum.
 

Morkel

International Captain
Staff
20,575
16,816
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 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.
 

bb_gun

NRL Player
2,686
1,476
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.
 

Foordy

International Rep
Staff
17,523
8,606
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.
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
 

bb_gun

NRL Player
2,686
1,476
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
Yeah, I was wrong. Stop rubbing it in goddamnit!
 

soup

State of Origin Rep
6,891
4,746
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.
Cheers.

I’d rather poke my eye out at this stage.
 

Tom

State of Origin Rep
6,606
5,688
Can we get back to talking about how bad the cowboys are now?
And they got to where they are after being gifted the most penalties and having conceded the second fewest. Hilarious. What an undignified end to Thurston's career.
 

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