Video referee

[subsbligh]

Also, Rabs was saying you can't ground the ball with your forearm, unless it is loose on the ground.

No try?

 

[Anonymous person]

Ok so, is that separation from the hand?

Where does the hand stop?

What if part of the hand and part of the forearm are contributing to the holding of the ball?

Picture holding a ball in one arm (ala Greg Inglis). It neccessarily involves a curved hand and the forearm.

Control is exerted by a combination of the hand and the forearm.

i know that, i was just saying that from what i saw, with the way he was holding it, the fact that the ball moved so much was enough proof that there was separation.

i agree that they need to clarify the term "separation", but come on, this is the NRL lol. they wont clarify it, they will leave as much room for (mis)interpretation as humanly possible.

Also, Rabs was saying you can't ground the ball with your forearm, unless it is loose on the ground.

No try?

? his hand is on the ball.....

 

[subsbligh]

His forearm is too.

 

[subsbligh]

This is probably a better photo to illustrate. If Morris lifts his wrist up, is that a no try?

 

[Anonymous person]

His forearm is too.

but his hand is too. if the ball is in your hands it doesnt matter if its also touching a bit of your forearm.

This is probably a better photo to illustrate. If Morris lifts his wrist up, is that a no try?

depends. to me that looks like he probably planted it with his hand and hes now rolling over the top of it. if however that was how he grounded it, without it being in his hand, then no, it shouldnt have been a try.

 

[subsbligh]

Dam I really want a gif of the McCullough try to illustrate and clarify.

As high as I can put it, the ball never separates from McCullough - it rolls from his hand, to wrist, to forearm. Agree with me for a second on that.

If you agree with me on that, is what you (and the refs) saying is there may not be separation from the hand or wrist and as soon as it hits the forearm, it's no try.

 

[Morkel]

Dam I really want a gif of the McCullough try to illustrate and clarify.

As high as I can put it, the ball never separates from McCullough - it rolls from his hand, to wrist, to forearm. Agree with me for a second on that.

If you agree with me on that, is what you (and the refs) saying is there may not be separation from the hand or wrist and as soon as it hits the forearm, it's no try.

I agree. It is entirely possible this happened. Because if that, the 'try' call should have been upheld. But to me, it's not the most likely scenario. There was more than a 50% chance that he lost control & there was separation. Therefore, ultimately correct result if the world was a fair place, but under the rules it was incorrect.

 

[Anonymous person]

Dam I really want a gif of the McCullough try to illustrate and clarify.

As high as I can put it, the ball never separates from McCullough - it rolls from his hand, to wrist, to forearm. Agree with me for a second on that.

If you agree with me on that, is what you (and the refs) saying is there may not be separation from the hand or wrist and as soon as it hits the forearm, it's no try.

nah what the ref said is that there WAS separation from hand/forearm.

so in your example, if it rolls from hand to forearm and never separates then its a try* by the rules.

i put the * because they dont define separation. if it means complete separation from your body then it would be ruled a try. if it means separation from your hand then it would be no try. as i read it, it means complete separation from body, so it would be a try.

IMO, and youre free to disagree because i only saw it in those replays and not since, to get that far down his arm there mustve been separation at some stage. that to me is enough to overrule the try call. like i said, i havent seen it again since, but i remembered it bobbling out of his grasp onto his forearm which then forced it. once its bobbled it has to be regathered by your hands or its a knock on.

 

[Dexter]

I think it all has more to do with regaining control. It's impossible to regain control (one armed that is ) with your forearm without using the ground, so you can keep contact all you like with the forearm from whatever height but if you don't regain control it won't matter.
That's how I see it anyway and it makes more sense than last years rule.

 

[Porthoz]

I think it all has more to do with regaining control. It's impossible to regain control (one armed that is ) with your forearm without using the ground, so you can keep contact all you like with the forearm from whatever height but if you don't regain control it won't matter.
That's how I see it anyway and it makes more sense than last years rule.

Completely agree this is how it should be. It is however NOT how it has been ruled most of the times!

 

[Coxy]

I'm 100% in agreeance with AP that a) you should only be able to ground the ball with your hand (in conjunction with wrist/forearm but of course control of hand). I'm also in agreeance that the new interpretation this year is better. I'm also in agreeance that under that interpretation the ruling on sunday was correct.

BUT, IMO it sucks balls that so many similar tries have been awarded this year!
Also IMO, there was no "definite" loss of control of the ball or clear separation. Given the on field decision was "TRY", IMO there was not sufficient evidence to overrule it, so the system failed in this case.

Unfortunately, that's the nature of humans being involved in the process. We're imperfect. And referees are particularly imperfect, because by definition they are retarded to a degree.

 

[LittleDavey]

So, video referees can't see offside even when asked to check it. Among their other flaws. Why do we persist with them again? Send it all back to the blokes in the middle FFS. Let them look at replays on the big screen and be done with it. The guys up in the box are getting as many wrong as they are right. The game doesn't need them, 4 on-field officials should be enough; if in doubt throw a liney in both in-goals as well and have them solely looking at potential tries. It's becoming a farce, Toovey was dead fucking right last week and we shall not forget the Cowboys clanger in last years' finals.

 

[Nashy]

The refs this year have been a disgrace. If Daniel Anderson keeps his job, it will be a fucking farce.

 

[Morkel]

They'll just change the rules again so that even if they're wrong, they're still right. That's what this crap is where the refs call try or no try before going to the video ref. Unless you can prove 100% that the ref got it wrong, they're right. Even if it looks like a clanger, eg, Foran's Hand Of God last year.

And apparently the refs are suffering from a lack of confidence. Boo hoo. Maybe stop sucking at your job? The refs boss shouldn't be there to placate the refs if they're ballsing up, he should be smacking them around until they get it right. It's like a Government job - even if you're grossly incompetent it's virtually impossible to get fired. In the real world, you **** up, repeatedly, you're out on your arse.

 

[Mr Fourex]

So, video referees can't see offside even when asked to check it. Among their other flaws. Why do we persist with them again? Send it all back to the blokes in the middle FFS. Let them look at replays on the big screen and be done with it. The guys up in the box are getting as many wrong as they are right. The game doesn't need them, 4 on-field officials should be enough; if in doubt throw a liney in both in-goals as well and have them solely looking at potential tries. It's becoming a farce, Toovey was dead fucking right last week and we shall not forget the Cowboys clanger in last years' finals.

I can accept on field refs getting things wrong ......in the run of the game, shit happens.

I can't accept video referees getting it wrong / missing the bleeding obvious. Just wtf are they watching ???

Every man and his dog watching last night saw that Coote was offside and Brisbane should have been awarded the penalty, instead of a drop out

.....somehow the dickheads upstairs missed it.

It was a turning point, along with Segeyaro breaking out hearts.

 

[Anonymous person]

iirc they actually changed how off/on side is determined recently (in last 3-4 years). i think it used to be where your feet were in relation to the kickers back foot, but now its where your feet are in relation to the ball? or is it the other way around? the NRL rule book is as useless as ever for trying to get a clear cut answer on this.

not saying that last nights wasnt offside, but id need to have another look to see where the ball actually was.

edit:

ok according to this: http://www.rugbyleague.com.au/nrl/referee_guidelines.pdf - from 2011

"A player is offside when he has one foot (either on or off the ground) in front of one of his own
team who touches, is touched by, held or kicked the ball."

so if either foot of the chaser (on or off ground) is in front of the furthest forward foot of the kicker, hes offside. anyone got a screen capture or vid of it handy?

 

[LittleDavey]

I don't, but the ball was kicked a metre before the line as the chaser was standing on the line. Blatant offside. I just don't understand how errors like that can be made if there's NOT money changing hands somewhere along the line. It's an absolute disgrace. Like Cronk's non-event sin bin last week - Hodges was sent for laying on Morris earlier in the year!! And Thaiday getting sat out for a game allegedly because he touched the ref - I'm sorry, I've seen multiple incidents of players touching refs and refs touching players ever since, with not a word said. Is it REALLY too much to ask for some consistency?!?!

I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment of the on-field refs fucking up, if it's not blatantly obvious, that's OK - they get one look, at speed, and have to make a decision. Tough gig - BUT THAT'S THEIR JOB, it's what they get paid for. They will make ****-ups. That's OK. Video refs get multiple looks at whatever speed they like. There is no excuse.

Fans are the ones lacking confidence in the referees FFS. And the NRL for allowing the rot to continue and fester. Am I too biased in saying the refs have had a hand in us missing the finals this year? Absolutely we're shit and aren't playing well enough, but there's been multiple tough/wrong calls at crucial times in crucial matches this year and we have gone on to lose. Yes the best teams get past that sort of adversity, we're not one of the best teams.

I'm almost tempted to say it's a conspiracy but that's crazy. Right?

 

[Big Pete]

I heard the offside rule had been ammended where you can now have one foot in line with the ball and be considered onside.