Peachy try proven to be the correct decision

[dannyt]

He played at it for sure, but it missed his hands and hit his chest.

As it stands right now, that is play on. End of story.

Whether the rule is right or not is completely different.

 

[OldPanther]

After this Panthers kick early trap Manly in their end DCE kicks out on our 40. We go down and get a repeat set with the overturned drop out off Tom Turbo. Next set the Peachy try. Manly kick off push RCG in goal. During their set T-POW throws a dodgy ball behind his players ruining their set and DCE puts a bomb that DWZ defuses and we go to the 40m Cleary kicks down field and Uate fumbles and Cartwright scores. Manly got screwed by themselves.

 

[Danny-Boy]

lol what caught your eye Fletch?

Being able to score off knock on's. Who would have known?

 

[umina panther]

lol what caught your eye Fletch?

Being able to score off knock on's. Who would have known?

Outstanding level of saltiness

 

[Danny-Boy]

Outstanding level of saltiness

Just quoting fletch. No need to get touchy.

 

[OldPanther]

Outstanding level of saltiness

It was on the Matty Johns show. Made a joke about Fingerson passing to Oats and Peachy's try.

 

[Scaven]

The stupid rule needs to change anyway, take it out of the refs hands. If the ball travels forward off anything other than below the knee it is a knock on. Not hard is it?
In fact I would go one further and say if the ball hits the ground at all off anything other than a purposeful kick it is a scrum with the feed to the opposing team.

 

[Timmah]

The stupid rule needs to change anyway, take it out of the refs hands. If the ball travels forward off anything other than below the knee it is a knock on. Not hard is it?
In fact I would go one further and say if the ball hits the ground at all off anything other than a purposeful kick it is a scrum with the feed to the opposing team.

Ridiculous. That means if you kick the ball and it strikes an unaware opposition player they've automatically knocked it on.

 

[Captain Apollo]

Ridiculous. That means if you kick the ball and it strikes an unaware opposition player they've automatically knocked it on.

I agree with you Timmah. Could you imagine what would occur if they changed the rule to one like that postulated by Scaven, teams would be kicking the ball trying to hit an opposing player so they could get a scrum and, more likely than not, a fresh set of six tackles.

 

[betcats]

The stupid rule needs to change anyway, take it out of the refs hands. If the ball travels forward off anything other than below the knee it is a knock on. Not hard is it?
In fact I would go one further and say if the ball hits the ground at all off anything other than a purposeful kick it is a scrum with the feed to the opposing team.

So because the refs made the right call that means the rules should be changed to make it the wrong call? WTF lol This is why our rules are such a dogs breakfast, you lost, we aren't changing the rules because of it just move on.

 

[stormbati]

So stupid. You can score a try with your torso yet can't knock it on??

 

[justdave]

On the original post. It wasn't 'proven' at all. All it means is the ref didn't have a clue and the bunker didn't have clue.

It looked to me like he touched it but I still don't have a clue either

 

[mave]

On the original post. It wasn't 'proven' at all. All it means is the ref didn't have a clue and the bunker didn't have clue.

It looked to me like he touched it but I still don't have a clue either

Which, in all fairness, is why the bunker made the correct decision, given the fact it was sent up as TRY.
There was nothing conclusive to overturn it.

 

[Scaven]

Ridiculous. That means if you kick the ball and it strikes an unaware opposition player they've automatically knocked it on.

No, not unless they played at it and there can still be charge-downs, so if you drop a bomb, the attacking team gets the ball back.
Anyway the fact you can propel the ball forward off your chest or head and it is play on is stupid, compared to the clear knock backs we see called knock-ons every week.
There is no consistency.

 

[Timmah]

On the original post. It wasn't 'proven' at all. All it means is the ref didn't have a clue and the bunker didn't have clue.

It looked to me like he touched it but I still don't have a clue either

There was no evidence to suggest he did touch it, which was what was needed for the Bunker to overturn the referee's decision.

Based on the angles provided I cannot see where he conclusively touched it, so the try decision stands.

No, not unless they played at it and there can still be charge-downs, so if you drop a bomb, the attacking team gets the ball back.
Anyway the fact you can propel the ball forward off your chest or head and it is play on is stupid, compared to the clear knock backs we see called knock-ons every week.
There is no consistency.

The rules are pretty clear tbh. You just don't like it when their application doesn't benefit your team.

 

[Fangs]

Amazing this thread now has a third page. It was a brilliant decision by the referees in question and they should be lauded.

 

[OldPanther]

No, not unless they played at it and there can still be charge-downs, so if you drop a bomb, the attacking team gets the ball back.
Anyway the fact you can propel the ball forward off your chest or head and it is play on is stupid, compared to the clear knock backs we see called knock-ons every week.
There is no consistency.

In that case you'll still have the 50/50 calls people hate with the ref deciding whether it was played at or not.

take it out of the refs hands.

No. People wanted the refs to be accountable. Now they want it changed because a correct decision went against them. We lost games to Cows and Rooster from bad calls. Swings and roundabouts.

The only thing that needs changed is the standard of the refs. Stop trying to remember all the players names and just remember the rules and apply them to everyone evenly.

 

[gUt]

I disagree with every post in this thread

I disagree

 

[Timmah]

The only thing that needs changed is the standard of the refs. Stop trying to remember all the players names and just remember the rules and apply them to everyone evenly.

This. If there's anything wrong with refereeing IMO it's the familiarity that forms part of the issue. They know the players by name in most cases, go back to the days of referring only to team names and numbers.

 

[Danny-Boy]

There was no evidence to suggest he did touch it, which was what was needed for the Bunker to overturn the referee's decision.

Based on the angles provided I cannot see where he conclusively touched it, so the try decision stands.

No evidence? The finger bending back is the only evidence needed. The bunker are trained to look for finger movement in these situations. So how did they miss the finger bending back?