POST GAME [Round 8, 2024] Broncos vs Wests Tigers

[broncos4life]

I can't remember but if the ball slips out and doesn't touch anyone AND they CLEARLY regather like Api did, it should be a try.

Like we've got Coates and Wishart being awarded tries that are at best unclear on grounding but Api could not have scored more clearly with downward pressure not being awarded. Then of course we have the all time classic 'drop kick' try from Slater being awarded. It is all a mess.

But that isn’t the rule.

 

[broncos4life]

It's one example of many. Just take a quick look at any nrl news and its the same across the board, with a lot of nrl greats also claiming it should have been a try.

The NRL greats? Well Billy Slater says clearly it wasn’t a try, so are we playing who’s NRL great trumps who?

 

[Xzei]

pretty cool

 

[broncos4life]

No man, it's not black and white like you suggest. The ball bobbles in his hand, he regains control over it before it touches anyone or anything and he plants it.
It's blowing up in all sports news for a reason, and that is because it is controversial.

It’s blowing up on sports news for a reason you are right, clicks. No-one gives a shit about an article that reads “correct call made, Api denied try through poor execution”.

It is also blowing up because a lot of the NRL don’t understand the rule either.

It is absolutely black and white and I will try to make it clear for you. The rule states (they changed this a few years ago) if there is separation you must regather with 2 hands. So what exactly are you disputing? Do you;

a) Believe there was no separation?

Or

b) Do you have another angle that shows Api regathered the ball with both hands?

 

[Old Mate]

I can't remember but if the ball slips out and doesn't touch anyone AND they CLEARLY regather like Api did, it should be a try.

Like we've got Coates and Wishart being awarded tries that are at best unclear on grounding but Api could not have scored more clearly with downward pressure not being awarded. Then of course we have the all time classic 'drop kick' try from Slater being awarded. It is all a mess.

That drop kick try pisses me off so much, especially when Gillette dropped the ball and booted it and got a field goal but they denied it because he wasn’t intending to kick a field goal. You know that if it was smith or Slater that did it it would be allowed.

 

[Midean]

It’s blowing up on sports news for a reason you are right, clicks. No-one gives a shit about an article that reads “correct call made, Api denied try through poor execution”.

It is also blowing up because a lot of the NRL don’t understand the rule either.

It is absolutely black and white and I will try to make it clear for you. The rule states (they changed this a few years ago) if there is separation you must regather with 2 hands. So what exactly are you disputing? Do you;

a) Believe there was no separation?

Or

b) Do you have another angle that shows Api regathered the ball with both hands?

I believe the seperation is negligible at those speeds and happens often with difficult put downs.
We have seen worse tries awarded.
If you slow down any try enough you will find a problem.

 

[Midean]

It's also not just for clicks, even just on this thread there is enough people that think it was a try, and that's against the team we played.
So yes, it's controversial weather you like it or not.
That's exactly why it's being discussed.
I would award that try 10 out of 10 times.
Also won't budge on this stance, regardless of who thinks its wrong, I think it's a try and tigers fans should be pissed about it.

 

[Brotherdu]

I can't remember but if the ball slips out and doesn't touch anyone AND they CLEARLY regather like Api did, it should be a try.

Like we've got Coates and Wishart being awarded tries that are at best unclear on grounding but Api could not have scored more clearly with downward pressure not being awarded. Then of course we have the all time classic 'drop kick' try from Slater being awarded. It is all a mess.

I think the distinction here is that 'catching up' with the the ball in a situation like Api's is not the same as 'regathering'. He is using the ground to regain control. He needs to have full control prior to grounding the ball, i.e. 2 hands on the ball or between his arm and body.

At least that is how I am interpreting this.

 

[Midean]

Spoon with the constructive input
/eyeroll

 

[Spoon]

Spoon with the constructive input
/eyeroll

Because you are completely ignoring the black and white rules to suit your argument. Doesn't matter who says what. The rules are very clear. No try failed to regather. Knock on.

 

[Midean]

Because you are completely ignoring the black and white rules to suit your argument. Doesn't matter who says what. The rules are very clear. No try failed to regather. Knock on.

That's more constructive, well done mate, welcome to the conversation

 

[Spoon]

That's more constructive, well done mate, welcome to the conversation

Thank you, I was reading my way down the thread when you replied.
Rules are rules

 

[broncos4life]

It's also not just for clicks, even just on this thread there is enough people that think it was a try, and that's against the team we played.
So yes, it's controversial weather you like it or not.
That's exactly why it's being discussed.
I would award that try 10 out of 10 times.
Also won't budge on this stance, regardless of who thinks its wrong, I think it's a try and tigers fans should be pissed about it.

It’s being discussed because a lot of people don’t understand the rule or like you do understand the rule but are just refusing to accept it for some bizarre reason.

You are entitled to not budge on your stance but your stance is wrong. This isn’t a vibe thing, these are facts that you are happy to be in the wrong about and wear as some sort of badge of honour so probably no point discussing any further.

 

[Morkel]

There is no re-gathering, or a regaining of control, just because the hand catches up with it does not constitute control. Yes, it's a tiny bit of separation for a fraction of a second, but it is there nonetheless. If your foot touches a tiny bit of the touchline for a fraction of a second, there is no "discretion". If you bobble the ball slightly in to the opposition, there is no "discretion". If it's not entirely clear, and therefore questionable, there can be discretion, but not when it is 100% confirmed, regardless of the amount of separation and time

 

[Morkel]

Arthars', on the other hand, looked to me to have zero separation. There was little control when it was grounded, but zero separation, with the new rules that is a try. But because Journos don't care about the rules, or the truth, especially if it would favour the Broncos, there was no "worst ruling ever" when that happened.

 

[Skathen]

There is no re-gathering, or a regaining of control, just because the hand catches up with it does not constitute control. Yes, it's a tiny bit of separation for a fraction of a second, but it is there nonetheless. If your foot touches a tiny bit of the touchline for a fraction of a second, there is no "discretion". If you bobble the ball slightly in to the opposition, there is no "discretion". If it's not entirely clear, and therefore questionable, there can be discretion, but not when it is 100% confirmed, regardless of the amount of separation and time

Correct - they changed the rule to make ruling on it more clear cut. It achieved that objective. What's less clear cut is people demanding "what looks like a try, should be a try" but that doesn't write well into a Policy/Procedure for the bunker to follow.

If the ball appears to come loose, they need to re-gain full control of the ball before it hits the dirt. Lovely and clear. Now watch the bunker come up with 15 different ways to interpret it week in week out.

 

[broncos4life]

This really shouldn’t be this hard, it’s the most basic flowchart ever.

Did the ball come away from the hand at any point?
Yes - Proceed to next point
No - Try

Did the player regather or regrip the ball prior to grounding without the assistance of the ground?
Yes - Try
No - No Try

 

[Sproj]

The player had the ball in one hand, why should he need to regather with both? And did his hand even definitively come away from it anyway? Some angles looked like he always had a finger on it. He clearly had control on put down.

Compare to the Roosters try a couple of weeks ago where the player clearly lost it, clear air between hand and ball when ball was on the ground but was given a try for the fans of something.

It isn’t hard to be consistent, this was far more a try than that trash.