Waqa Try

[Anonymous person]

Gee, I didn't see that one coming... :001_rolleyes:

You see many things that aren't true though, so noone really gives much weight to your opinion.

You can't without a shadow of a doubt say that the ball came forwards out of his hands. Remember, backwards to chest and then forwards to ground is not a knock-on, no matter how many people on here try to argue that it is.

Just watch the replay again - if it's a knock on then how does the ball end up at his waist when it was in his arms in front of his chest when he dived forwards? Please oh wise one, tell me how he defied physics for that one.

 

[Porthoz]

Re: Round 24 - Broncos vs Storm - Post Match Discussion

You see many things that aren't true though, so noone really gives much weight to your opinion.

You can't without a shadow of a doubt say that the ball came forwards out of his hands. Remember, backwards to chest and then forwards to ground is not a knock-on, no matter how many people on here try to argue that it is.

Just watch the replay again - if it's a knock on then how does the ball end up at his waist when it was in his arms in front of his chest when he dived forwards? Please oh wise one, tell me how he defied physics for that one.

Yeah, yeah, I know... no one cares about my opinion, blah blah...
Did I upset you sweetheart, because you seem a little obsessed with that line? :001_unsure:

Sure mate, you and Bellamy are right, and the rest of the world is wrong... You aren't the odd one out at all! :001_rolleyes:

 

[Coxy]

Re: Round 24 - Broncos vs Storm - Post Match Discussion

You see many things that aren't true though, so noone really gives much weight to your opinion.

You can't without a shadow of a doubt say that the ball came forwards out of his hands. Remember, backwards to chest and then forwards to ground is not a knock-on, no matter how many people on here try to argue that it is.

Just watch the replay again - if it's a knock on then how does the ball end up at his waist when it was in his arms in front of his chest when he dived forwards? Please oh wise one, tell me how he defied physics for that one.

If it happened anywhere else on the field it would've been ruled lost in the tackle and scrum.
That should be the acid test.

 

[Dexter]

Re: Round 24 - Broncos vs Storm - Post Match Discussion

Knock ons can go backwards out of the hand but if the ball goes forward in relation to the ground they are considered to be a knock on.

Waqa used the ground to help control the ball, so backwards from the hands but the ball traveled forwards with his momentum from where it came free then touched the ground so it is a knock on.

You cannot regain control with your torso only provide downward pressure to force the ball therefore ground was used to help control the ball, still a knock on.

 

[broncos4life]

Re: Round 24 - Broncos vs Storm - Post Match Discussion

You see many things that aren't true though, so noone really gives much weight to your opinion.

You can't without a shadow of a doubt say that the ball came forwards out of his hands. Remember, backwards to chest and then forwards to ground is not a knock-on, no matter how many people on here try to argue that it is.

Just watch the replay again - if it's a knock on then how does the ball end up at his waist when it was in his arms in front of his chest when he dived forwards? Please oh wise one, tell me how he defied physics for that one.

Because he was running top speed and dived. if you actually understood physics, I mean the basic concepts not just how to spell the words so you can put it in a sentence to give the impression of intelligence, you would understand that the speed of his body mass would be travelling faster than the ball, therefore giving the impression the ball went back (although it looked to go straight down at best.

AP, if it was knocked back, maybe you could explain why every single person (including members of the media that love to put the boot into the broncs) except you, simpkins and bellemy think it was no try?

 

[Steve]

Re: Round 24 - Broncos vs Storm - Post Match Discussion

Definitely no try. They were coming for us though and probably would have overrun us anyway. Still doesn't make it any easier to hear.

 

[Anonymous person]

Re: Round 24 - Broncos vs Storm - Post Match Discussion

Because he was running top speed and dived. if you actually understood physics, I mean the basic concepts not just how to spell the words so you can put it in a sentence to give the impression of intelligence, you would understand that the speed of his body mass would be travelling faster than the ball, therefore giving the impression the ball went back (although it looked to go straight down at best.

AP, if it was knocked back, maybe you could explain why every single person (including members of the media that love to put the boot into the broncs) except you, simpkins and bellemy think it was no try?

lol

it didnt appear to go backwards, it did - it was in his arms in front of his chest, then it was down at his waist. the ball cant travel FORWARDS yet go from your hands backwards to your waist.

at best, like you said, its gone directly down - hence the benefit of the doubt, like i said. if its gone directly down, but it started in his hands and ended up at his waist, theres DOUBT about it being a knock-on. benefit of the doubt goes to who?

i can explain why "every single person" thinks it was no try - although the only people youre hearing are people having a cry because theyre the only ones who are still carrying on about it - it was a contentious decision that could have had a big impact on the game, against the broncos, one of the biggest clubs in the league, and theres no doubt that he did drop the ball.

but like ive said a dozen times before, these days everyone seems to see a ball come loose in a tackle and just shout "KNOCK ON!!!!" regardless of what direction the ball actually went. its why i want the knock-on/back rule changed to simply 'lost ball' while a tackle is being made, resulting in a handover. it makes it black and white, no room for argument - if the ball comes loose in a tackle, its a handover.

and again, just because "everyone" believes something doesnt mean its right. "everyone" believes that Hodges' try in origin 3 wasnt a try, yet it is by the book. "everyone" believes that inglis' try in origin 1 isnt a try, yet it is by the book. "everyone" believes that Morris' try in origin 3 is a try, yet it isnt by the book. "everyone", in general, is an idiot. "everyone" just goes by what "everyone else" says.

Yeah, yeah, I know... no one cares about my opinion, blah blah...
Did I upset you sweetheart, because you seem a little obsessed with that line? :001_unsure:

not at all. im not obsessed with it, its just the truth. im not gonna say that 2+2 doesnt equal 4 just because you say i keep saying it equals 4. the gillett/taylor thing proved without a shadow of a doubt that you have very little knowledge or understanding of the game of rugby league, or even common sense.

 

[noisetheory]

Re: Round 24 - Broncos vs Storm - Post Match Discussion

If it happened anywhere else on the field it would've been ruled lost in the tackle and scrum.
That should be the acid test.

this. its just common sense. COMMON SENSE

waqa himself didnt think it was a try.

 

[Coxy]

Re: Round 24 - Broncos vs Storm - Post Match Discussion

Knock ons can go backwards out of the hand but if the ball goes forward in relation to the ground they are considered to be a knock on.

Waqa used the ground to help control the ball, so backwards from the hands but the ball traveled forwards with his momentum from where it came free then touched the ground so it is a knock on.

You cannot regain control with your torso only provide downward pressure to force the ball therefore ground was used to help control the ball, still a knock on.

^^^ This. But it all gets confused by the stupid "guidelines" Harrigan and co release in relation to what constitutes control/downward pressure/separation etc.

They have made a simple rule complicated. It used to be (and by the rule book still is) if you carried the ball into the in goal then you had to have CONTROL and apply downward pressure. The reason being, as Dexter points out, anywhere else on the field if you lose control of the ball you have to regain it in your hands before the ball touches the ground, opposition, teammate, post or referee. If not, it's a knock on.

This business of separation and crap, pfft. If you are attempting to score a try you should have to have control of the ball. End of story. Forcing a loose ball is an entirely different situation.

 

[broncos4life]

Re: Round 24 - Broncos vs Storm - Post Match Discussion

lol

it didnt appear to go backwards, it did - it was in his arms in front of his chest, then it was down at his waist. the ball cant travel FORWARDS yet go from your hands backwards to your waist.

at best, like you said, its gone directly down - hence the benefit of the doubt, like i said. if its gone directly down, but it started in his hands and ended up at his waist, theres DOUBT about it being a knock-on. benefit of the doubt goes to who?

i can explain why "every single person" thinks it was no try - although the only people youre hearing are people having a cry because theyre the only ones who are still carrying on about it - it was a contentious decision that could have had a big impact on the game, against the broncos, one of the biggest clubs in the league, and theres no doubt that he did drop the ball.

but like ive said a dozen times before, these days everyone seems to see a ball come loose in a tackle and just shout "KNOCK ON!!!!" regardless of what direction the ball actually went. its why i want the knock-on/back rule changed to simply 'lost ball' while a tackle is being made, resulting in a handover. it makes it black and white, no room for argument - if the ball comes loose in a tackle, its a handover.

and again, just because "everyone" believes something doesnt mean its right. "everyone" believes that Hodges' try in origin 3 wasnt a try, yet it is by the book. "everyone" believes that inglis' try in origin 1 isnt a try, yet it is by the book. "everyone" believes that Morris' try in origin 3 is a try, yet it isnt by the book. "everyone", in general, is an idiot. "everyone" just goes by what "everyone else" says.


not at all. im not obsessed with it, its just the truth. im not gonna say that 2+2 doesnt equal 4 just because you say i keep saying it equals 4. the gillett/taylor thing proved without a shadow of a doubt that you have very little knowledge or understanding of the game of rugby league, or even common sense.

Firstly it is hilarious that you would challenge another posters credibility or understanding of the game... you read the garbage you post right?

Secondly if your so sure that it was knocked back then why has harrigan said the try should not have been awarded? does he just get off on lying to the public in an effort to undermine the credibility of himself and the refs he is in charge of?

 

[Coxy]

Re: Round 24 - Broncos vs Storm - Post Match Discussion

Should also note that in the past a lost ball in a tackle was always deemed a lost ball/error/scrum/handover. The "knock on" rule was more judging fumbles of passes/kicks. The notion being once a tackle has begun, it's a ruck. The only way the ball can come out of a ruck is if the player offloads before the referee has ruled held, or play the ball after the ruck is complete. And then the pass is judged to be forward or not.

But hey, we keep coming up with all these rules, identifying if the ball went back 5mm or forward 5mm. We overcomplicate what were intended to be very simple rules.

BTW, a ball that is dropped straight down is always ruled a knock on. Always has been. Always should be.

 

[Dexter]

Re: Round 24 - Broncos vs Storm - Post Match Discussion

^^^ This. But it all gets confused by the stupid "guidelines" Harrigan and co release in relation to what constitutes control/downward pressure/separation etc.

Guidelines make my head hurt.:cuckoo:

 

[Coxy]

Re: Round 24 - Broncos vs Storm - Post Match Discussion

Yep. There's this thing called the rule book. And then there's this thing called human judgment. We pay the referees to know the rules and apply them using their judgment. We have 5 of the harmichaels for every game. Surely they don't need to be babied with extra guidelines that just so often defy common sense.

 

[Anonymous person]

Re: Round 24 - Broncos vs Storm - Post Match Discussion

Firstly it is hilarious that you would challenge another posters credibility or understanding of the game... you read the garbage you post right?

Secondly if your so sure that it was knocked back then why has harrigan said the try should not have been awarded? does he just get off on lying to the public in an effort to undermine the credibility of himself and the refs he is in charge of?

people that dont understand the game telling me that i dont understand the game doesnt mean anything. ive proven countless times beyond any reasonable doubt that i understand the game and its rules.

"why has harrigan said the try should not have been awarded"

like i said before - are you really now going to come out and say that Harrigan has NEVER gotten a decision wrong or said that a decision someone else made was correct when it clearly wasnt? this is the man who missed 2 clear as day knock-ons in a NSW try and then sent off the QLD captain when he called him out on it. this is also the man who has backed up poor and incorrect calls by his referees many times this season alone.

but sure, because you agree with him THIS TIME it means that he is a glowing example of all that is the NRL rulebook and justice.

i dont really know how anyone can say that theres not even a miniscule chance that the ball didnt come backwards from waqas grasp. watch the replay, it did. like i said, at worst for him it went straight down. as coxy said, straight down is a knock-on - but some of you dont seem to understand the benefit of the doubt rule. if there is ANY doubt whatsoever, its a try. you cannot look at that and say with 100% certainty that the ball didnt go backwards even 1mm, hence the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Coxy]

Re: Round 24 - Broncos vs Storm - Post Match Discussion

Benefit of the doubt as a concept is absolutely flawed. The reward for "doubt" is far too great.

It's why in cricket the benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman. Losing a wicket is a HUGE impact on a team, so if there's any doubt that they were out, the umpire says not out.

In rugby league terms, a try is as big as a wicket. If the video referee is not absolutely convinced it's a try, then it should be no try. The only exception being if he can't see either way (due to obscured vision) then refs call and the on field referees' view applies.

 

[Fozz]

That's right everyone, remember that AP knows all and is never ever wrong. All bow before his superior knowledge.

Just ask him, he'll tell you.

 

[noisetheory]

Re: Round 24 - Broncos vs Storm - Post Match Discussion

Benefit of the doubt as a concept is absolutely flawed. The reward for "doubt" is far too great.

It's why in cricket the benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman. Losing a wicket is a HUGE impact on a team, so if there's any doubt that they were out, the umpire says not out.

In rugby league terms, a try is as big as a wicket. If the video referee is not absolutely convinced it's a try, then it should be no try. The only exception being if he can't see either way (due to obscured vision) then refs call and the on field referees' view applies.

i've been saying this since they brought BOTD in. the cricket analogy is spot on. it makes no sense to me that doubt goes to the attacking team.

 

[Coxy]

Re: Round 24 - Broncos vs Storm - Post Match Discussion

i've been saying this since they brought BOTD in. the cricket analogy is spot on. it makes no sense to me that doubt goes to the attacking team.

I think it'd make decisions happen faster too. Instead of slowing it down to the nth degree to see if they scored, if it looks dodgy, disallow it.