Worst Try In The History Of Origin

[Spud]

^^^ I think that the fact he was in the process of scoring a try, you would have to say he was playing at it

 

[Garts]

I have not read the thread but if he was playing at the ball with his foot would that not constitute a penalty try or a potential 8 point try. I am not 100% sure of the rules around this but thought that would be the case.

 

[Big Pete]

I have not read the thread but if he was playing at the ball with his foot would that not constitute a penalty try or a potential 8 point try. I am not 100% sure of the rules around this but thought that would be the case.

Apparently you're allowed to dislodge the ball as long as you don't make contact with the player.

Should just outlaw it altogether for mine and eliminate that grey area.

 

[Eels Dude]

Apparently you're allowed to dislodge the ball as long as you don't make contact with the player.

Should just outlaw it altogether for mine and eliminate that grey area.

It will still be a grey area because then the video ref will have to determine whether a player was deliberately dislodging the ball or his foot was simply in the way accidently.

 

[Karl]

It all comes down to this -



It was the derpiest derp of a try ever derped.

But thanks to Karl for all the lols. If anybody has experience with their brain shutting down, it's Karl :lol:

Dude, it was a fair try. You're wrong. Even nswelshmen like Matt Johns can work it out. Vautin agrees. The video ref knows it, Harrigan has confirmed it. Your arguments are fundamentally and logically flawed. Build a f**king bridge.

 

[docbrown]

Dude, it was a fair try. You're wrong. Even nswelshmen like Matt Johns can work it out.

"Oh... Karl says someone in NSW agrees with him, guess we should all defer to Karl's expertise on neurological science and advanced quantum mechanics."

Tell us all again about how you can read Greg Inglis' mind. :lol:

Vautin agrees.

Keep digging your hole.

The video ref knows it, Harrigan has confirmed it. Your arguments are fundamentally and logically flawed. Build a f**king bridge.

You should stick to your beloved Rugby Union.

I've seen great Origin tries.
I've seen good Origin tries.
I've seen mediocre Origin tries.

And on a level below that is the Inglis try. :lol:

 

[Mr Fourex]

And on a level below that is the Inglis try. :lol:

Glad you've finally accepted that it was in fact a try. After that epic whinge you carried on with last night it's good to see.

Healthy stuff Doc

....time to move on now.

 

[Snappy]

Most league experts are now conceding that according to the rule book it was a fair try. All the moaning in the world isnt going to change what happened.

Get over it and move on.

 

[docbrown]

Glad you've finally accepted that it was in fact a try.

I made the thread and called it "WORST TRY IN THE HISTORY OF ORIGIN"

Was that too obvious for you? :lol:

 

[Karl]

"Oh... Karl says someone in NSW agrees with him, guess we should all defer to Karl's expertise on neurological science and advanced quantum mechanics."

Tell us all again about how you can read Greg Inglis' mind. :lol:



Keep digging your hole.



You should stick to your beloved Rugby Union.

I've seen great Origin tries.
I've seen good Origin tries.
I've seen mediocre Origin tries.

And on a level below that is the Inglis try. :lol:

It was an ugly try, it was a messy try.

It was, nonetheless, a try.

 

[docbrown]

It was an ugly try, it was a messy try.

It was, nonetheless, a try.

Keep going, tell us about how shit it really was. :lol:

 

[gronkathon]

So to break it down the ruling came down to judging a players intent and basically stating Farahs thought processes and reaction times are just much quicker then GI

 

[Karl]

So to break it down the ruling came down to judging a players intent and basically stating Farahs thought processes and reaction times are just much quicker then GI

Refs judge intent all the time. There are different consequences for deliberate and accidental infringements.

And Farah's reactions weren't quicker - he had loads more time to react. He saw the kick go to ground, he saw Inglis grab the ball in the field of play, knew he would try to be scoring, could easily deduce where he would be, tried to get a foot under it or kick it loose - it was a reflex but for a professional sportsman it wasn't exactly super human.

GI on the other hand had a ball kicked out of his hands and into his forearm in what was essentially one, instantaneous action that dislodged the ball, it rolled free right in front of him in the direction his momentum was already taking him. He reached out a hand and scored.

I fail to see what the objections are, not when you understand the Rules and apply them properly/

 

[Valheru]

Well this thread has been good for a laugh. The following is what QLD supporters have convinced themselves of –

Greg Inglis recovered the ball after the knock back from Slater, he tried to ground the ball at which stage Farah viciously and deliberately kicked it out of his hands. Despite his hands being in an outstretched motion, it was at this exact point that his intent to play at the ball vanished as his brain shut down all non vital functions. The ball then “rebounds” on to his forearm at which stage his brain has rebooted and his intent to score a try returns.

DERP!!!!

 

[Springs]

Yeah it dislodged the ball, but it last touched Inglis's hands and arms while he was still trying to put it down. If Farah's action was legal then it is just poor ball security on Inglis's part and a knock-on. If Farah's action was illegal it should have been a penalty try, not the ridiculous ruling they came up with.

And you already proved who had a greater force. Since the ball went forward off Inglis, the momentum was with him. It was more an action of Farah trying to stop the try and Inglis planting the ball right on it, other than Farah actively kicking the ball out of his hands, just like what would happen if he went to ground the ball like that and a hand or arm or knee was in the road and it came loose. It was a simple fumble. If Farah's action is legal then it is a clear cut knock-on. He lost control of the ball because he tried to ground it on an opposing player's foot that was in the road, a foot placed there legally. No try.

 

[Springs]

yeah you've got to ask yourself this, if its on halfway is it play on or is it a scrum?

the rule has to change.

Anywhere on the field in any game on earth it's a knock on, scrum, no complaints EXCEPT for big game NRL/Origin matches video ref decisions.

 

[Springs]

Further points that it is no try:
If Inglis goes to put the ball down in the exact same manner but it hits Farah's knee or shin and dislodges (Farah making the exact same action 'I have to do something to prevent this try' as Harrigan says) it would be called an obvious knock-on, as he had no ball security and lost control of it when he went to place it on an opponent's limb, which was there legally. It's the exact same action as the try on Wednesday night, where Inglis had the ball dislodged from his hands legally by Farah, then it last touched his hands and arm while he was still trying to ground it, lost control of it, it went forward. Knock on. Any part of the field, any other game on earth, every time except big Origin video ref decisions. That's what makes it a farce. Origin and NRL decisions should not be different from any other rugby league game. Even so, it's still a no try.

 

[Karl]

Watched the Footy show last night.

Clearly everyone who knows anything about the Rules of Rugby League agrees it was a fair try and the decision to award it was correct.

The only people still bleating about it are showing how little they understand about the rules and the application of the rules by continually harping on with irrelevant and ill-informed comments that serve only to highlight their ignorance and immaturity in being unable to accept the reality of the situation.

One of the comments on the show last night was about how the "mug punters" are having a hard time accepting the decision because they don't understand how this rule is applied. This was from NSW commentators and players as well. The posts on this forum and in this thread arguing about it sure support that view. Its like a Cult of Mug Punter Denial.

And Springs and Valheru are the leaders of Jonestown

 

[Stewie Griffin]

Well this thread has been good for a laugh. The following is what QLD supporters have convinced themselves of –

Greg Inglis recovered the ball after the knock back from Slater, he tried to ground the ball at which stage Farah viciously and deliberately kicked it out of his hands. Despite his hands being in an outstretched motion, it was at this exact point that his intent to play at the ball vanished as his brain shut down all non vital functions. The ball then “rebounds” on to his forearm at which stage his brain has rebooted and his intent to score a try returns.

DERP!!!!

If Farah in normal play kicks the ball and hits Inglis who is only 30cm away, standing still; or falling down in no relation to Farah's kick; and the ball rebounds off him, has he played at it? Is it a knock on? No.

In that case, the try is legal.

Again, even if (as most of NSWmen argue) Inglis did play at the ball after Farah's kick, it would constitute as a charge down, where in that case it isn't a knock on.

 

[gUt]

haha a charge down, nice.