POST GAME Round 9 - Broncos vs Panthers

[Dexter]

I agree with JPs pov personally. If that had been ruled against us I would be dirty. End of the day as long as they are all ruled like that IDGAF

 

[Morkel]

I have watched it ten times and I have no idea where people are getting he lost possession Pete. You believe that Wallace was losing that ball into McGuires arm?

It's at the singular point in time between when he has possession and when he doesn't have possession.

 

[JayPee]

I agree with JPs pov personally. If that had been ruled against us I would be dirty. End of the day as long as they are all ruled like that IDGAF

Yep that old age word consistency. Consistency from the Bunker especially would be great. Never going to get it from refs from game to game. Thought they had a great start to the year but the last few weeks there has been some real dodge ones across a few games

 

[holdzy]

It's at the singular point in time between when he has possession and when he doesn't have possession.

And, er, we saw nothing.

 

[Dexter]

It's at the singular point in time between when he has possession and when he doesn't have possession.

Thanks Sheldon

 

[Rhys van Beurden]

8. If a tackled player loses possession of the ball at the moment of impact with an opponent or with the ground, play shall proceed unless stopped for some other reason, e.g. the ball has been knocked forward.

No, you are misreading the rule. That is referring to player on player contact. As in when his physical person makes contact with the opposing player and he drops the ball backwards from said contact.

 

[Renegade]

Personally i thought it was a legal strip (can strip if going for a try) and therefore had no issue with the panthers regathering and scoring.

I dont believe its a loose carry, otherwise any time the ball comes free, ever, is a loose carry imo.

 

[Big Pete]

I dont believe its a loose carry, otherwise any time the ball comes free, ever, is a loose carry imo.

On the other hand, could you really consider it a strip when a defender makes contact with the football? For instance, if a player gets their shoulder under the ball, is it a strip?

When you carry the ball as loosely as Wallace to the point where it can be dislodged that easily, it isn't a strip/rake.

 

[Renegade]

On the other hand, could you really consider it a strip when a defender makes contact with the football? For instance, if a player gets their shoulder under the ball, is it a strip?

On the 50m line no. Going for a try, i think there is some merit in it.

 

[Porthoz]

Interesting thing is how easily Kahu keeps up... being the slowest NRL player and all, at least according to certain people.

 

[tommy]

On the 50m line no. Going for a try, i think there is some merit in it.

So where is the line drawn? 5m? 10? 20? Do we want another grey area where the ref uses his discretion to decide? Black and White rules all day imo.

 

[Big Pete]

On the 50m line no. Going for a try, i think there is some merit in it.

An each way bet, which is what they're taught to do anywhere on the field. It doesn't matter whether it's near the try line or not.

 

[Renegade]

So where is the line drawn? 5m? 10? 20? Do we want another grey area where the ref uses his discretion to decide? Black and White rules all day imo.

I dont really care either way, it benefited my team, but i think if you're going for a try as wallace was then it needs to be a consideration. If the person is 10m tall and falling over the line then yes adjudicate it from the 10m.

 

[Dash]

It's the exact same ruling as when a good shot under the ribcage forces the ball out. Doesn't matter whether the ball goes forward or backward, once you lose possession it's deemed to be a knock on i.e. Lost forward into the shoulder of the tackler.

 

[Renegade]

An each way bet, which is what they're taught to do anywhere on the field. It doesn't matter whether it's near the try line or not.

I think it does because if it wasnt near the line it wouldve been a 2 man strip and a penalty, imo.

 

[Harry Sack]

Um, everyone's missing the fucking obvious. The Thaiday "knock-on". Thaiday goes to grab the ball, touches it (but doesn't bobble it), Moylan kicks it out (instigating the loss of possession) and it goes backwards towards our goal line. Thaiday ruled to have lost it.

IT'S THE EXACT SAME FUCKING THING. Where is the whingeing over that one?

On that actually, wasn't there some rule about not kicking at the ball in that situation? Or was that only when someone was attempting to score a try?

 

[Rhino1001]

From what I understand the decision was correct. The bunker ruled McGuire wasn't playing at the ball, so when his arm came in contact with the ball it is deemed to be lost. Seeing McGuire wasn't playing at the ball, this incident is just like as if the ball came in contact with his thigh resulting in the ball coming out, that then would of been called a knock on.

 

[holdzy]

From what I understand the decision was correct. The bunker ruled McGuire wasn't playing at the ball, so when his arm came in contact with the ball it is deemed to be lost. Seeing McGuire wasn't playing at the ball, this incident is just like as if the ball came in contact with his thigh resulting in the ball coming out, that then would of been called a knock on.

Except...he kinda was definitely playing at the ball.

Honestly though, how many pages is this debate worth?