James Tamou no-try

[mistertaylor]

Is the bunker being funded by the Thoroughbreds this year??

 

[Munted]

Like everyone else, I don't buy this loose carry horse shit.
Slippery slope if you ask me.

Can the NRL define a deliberate play at the ball? Is this the ol 'stripping motion'? Hah.

What about a 'no look strip', will people get away with it by disguising it?

Up there with people deliberately throwing the ball into an offside player to get a penalty. f**k it off.

 

[mxlegend99]

McGuire came out and said he played at the ball. That's also how the ref saw it and sent it up as a try.

Yet the bunker not only had conclusive evidence to say he didn't play at it (how can you conclusively say what his intentions are? Only McGuire knows), they found a knock on despite Wallace having control of the ball at the point of impact and it being propelled backwards out of his hand towards his own goal line.

There was no knock on regardless of McGuires intentions but as it turns out he admits his intention was to play at the ball.

The NRL then backs the bunker despite it being flat oit wrong because they cant have people questioning all these decisions the bunker get wrong in Broncos favor.

 

[Pete Cash]

I think the argument is that because it was a "loose carry" wallace propelled the ball forward into mcguire despite the ball never travelling forward.

However i dont think wallace loses the ball until mcguire struck it. So its a laughable that the nrl is trying to tell us that the ball travelled forward from wallace loose carry when our own eyeballs can see it goes back towards the panthers deadball line

 

[SLRBRONCOS]

Should have been a try.

Refs are so shit.

 

[Big Pete]

Wallace lost possession into an opposition player which is deemed an automatic knock on, the fact the ball ended up going backwards has no relevance.

It comes down to whether Wallace lost the ball as a result of the tackle, or whether McGuire deliberately stripped him of the football. The video referee was of the opinion that the ball came loose while McGuire was just trying to effect a tackle.

Could argue that McGuire made an each way bet, but it's no different to a play targeting the football with his shoulder in an attempt to dislodge it.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

The NRL then backs the bunker despite it being flat oit wrong because they cant have people questioning all these decisions the bunker get wrong in Broncos favor.

I don't disagree, but done so Tony Archer at the end of the season can say they only made 5 mistakes out of 1000 at the end of the season and that they are doing a great job. It is all about the KPI's. Archer is a habitual liar with zero integrity and only keeps his job because the guys above him are just as bad. Everything they do and say is done to protect their jobs. The result though is an organization that is run in a totally incompetent manner.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

Wallace lost possession into an opposition player which is deemed an automatic knock on, the fact the ball ended up going backwards has no relevance.

It comes down to whether Wallace lost the ball as a result of the tackle, or whether McGuire deliberately stripped him of the football. The video referee was of the opinion that the ball came loose while McGuire was just trying to effect a tackle.

Could argue that McGuire made an each way bet, but it's no different to a play targeting the football with his shoulder in an attempt to dislodge it.

Wallace did not lose the ball into an opposition player, it was knocked out by the opposition players hand reaching out. Given it was awarded a try, the video ref has to prove that Maguire didn't intentionally knock the ball out of Wallace's hands which he had no ability to prove. He is simply either incompetent or corrupt.

 

[This Year?]

I'm disgusted they got that call wrong.

It should have been a try to the Broncos.

 

[Big Pete]

Wallace did not lose the ball into an opposition player, it was knocked out by the opposition players hand reaching out. Given it was awarded a try, the video ref has to prove that Maguire didn't intentionally knock the ball out of Wallace's hands which he had no ability to prove. He is simply either incompetent or corrupt.

He had to prove whether McGuire had intentionally stripped the football, or had the football come loose into McGuire as a result of the tackle. The replay showed McGuire had effected the tackle and in the course of it, dislodged Wallace of the football. There was no stripping or raking motion to speak of.

 

[Pete Cash]

Is this actually the rule ?

 

[Nice Beaver]

Wallace did not lose the ball into an opposition player, it was knocked out by the opposition players hand reaching out. Given it was awarded a try, the video ref has to prove that Maguire didn't intentionally knock the ball out of Wallace's hands which he had no ability to prove. He is simply either incompetent or corrupt.

This is what I don't get at all for those arguing no try.

On what planet can anyone possibly conceive it was a loose carry by Wallace and knocked into Maguire?

Maguire literally punches the ball out of Wallace's arm. If Maguire was not there can any sane person tell us that Wallace was going to drop that ball?

 

[This Year?]

Whether it's a try or not depends on the following factors:

1. Which team is holding the ball.

2. Which team the try is against.

3. Who the referee is.

4. Sportsbet odds.

 

[user_nat]

I 100% believe they got it wrong. Had the same thing happened to us I'd be fuming.

For it to be a knock on the ball has to travel forward into an opponent / the ground, that doesn't happen.

 

[Big Pete]

This is what I don't get at all for those arguing no try.

On what planet can anyone possibly conceive it was a loose carry by Wallace and knocked into Maguire?

Maguire literally punches the ball out of Wallace's arm. If Maguire was not there can any sane person tell us that Wallace was going to drop that ball?

That isn't the argument.

The argument is that Wallace has lost possession of the football as a result of the tackle and it has made contact with an opposition player who was in-front of him. Therefore it's a knock on.

 

[wibble]

I think the argument is that because it was a "loose carry" wallace propelled the ball forward into mcguire despite the ball never travelling forward.

However i dont think wallace loses the ball until mcguire struck it. So its a laughable that the nrl is trying to tell us that the ball travelled forward from wallace loose carry when our own eyeballs can see it goes back towards the panthers deadball line

Wallace lost possession into an opposition player which is deemed an automatic knock on, the fact the ball ended up going backwards has no relevance.

It comes down to whether Wallace lost the ball as a result of the tackle, or whether McGuire deliberately stripped him of the football. The video referee was of the opinion that the ball came loose while McGuire was just trying to effect a tackle.

Could argue that McGuire made an each way bet, but it's no different to a play targeting the football with his shoulder in an attempt to dislodge it.

Wallace did not lose the ball into an opposition player, it was knocked out by the opposition players hand reaching out. Given it was awarded a try, the video ref has to prove that Maguire didn't intentionally knock the ball out of Wallace's hands which he had no ability to prove. He is simply either incompetent or corrupt.

All correct.

As Pete Cash says, the NRL are arguing it was a loose carry.

This means nothing. A "loose carry" is not an official term for anything.

So as Big Pete says, this actually has to mean the Bunker ruled the ball was lost by Wallace, into McGuire.

This is always a knock on, intention of the tackler and direction of the ball afterwards are irrelevant.

As Cockadoodledoo says, it clearly did not come free of Wallace's possession. Not only that, it was sent up as a "Try" so the evidence had to be good that it came out. The evidence is in fact very clear that it didn't come free until McGuire hit it.

I would also agree that therefore the Bunker official is incompetent or corrupt, but would add that by defending it with irrelevant terms and not addressing the clear mistake, so too is Archer.

 

[soc123_au]

Loose carry my arse. Anyone seriously suggesting that is geniused.

 

[mxlegend99]

I'm disgusted they got that call wrong.

It should have been a try to the Broncos.

They are updating the software now so that they can do that next week. It was a glitch missed until now

 

[Frank_Grimes]

It's the same interpretation as Thaidays no try in Origin 2 2014. Hayne dislodged the ball from Thaidays grasp as he was reaching out to ground it. Thaiday regathered the ball/grounded it simultaneously to it hitting the ground. The video ref (and every blues fan) adjudicated that it was a loose carry and ruled no try.

In a try scoring situation they always seem to err on the side of knock on when the ball is dislodged.

 

[mxlegend99]

That isn't the argument.

The argument is that Wallace has lost possession of the football as a result of the tackle and it has made contact with an opposition player who was in-front of him. Therefore it's a knock on.

Which is all fictional.

The tackle didnt knock the ball loose. McGuires arm made contact with the ball and forced it out backwards. Intentional or not (McGuire admitted it was intentional... yet bunker conclusively determined it wasnt) it only ever travelled backwards from his hands

At no point was the ball lost forward. Wallace had it in his hands. McGuire made contact. At this point its still in his hands... that force propelled it out backwards.

The ball was never lost forward. It's plain as day that Wallace had control at the moment it made contact with McGuire. The next moment its going backwards toward his own line.

Edit
I mean what the bunker claims is fictional. Not that they are claining it. Obviously they did.