What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

James Tamou no-try

Big Pete

Referee
Messages
28,939
The tackle didnt knock the ball loose. McGuires arm made contact with the ball and forced it out backwards.

It doesn't matter though since he's lost the ball into McGuire who has then propelled the ball backwards.

The most important element here is whether McGuire was effecting a tackle or was simply looking to strip the footy.
 

mxlegend99

Referee
Messages
23,004
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.
Did the ball travel forward from the time he lost it? Or did it shoot out backward?

Because if it travelled forwards atleast their argument (while wrong) has some sort of logic. If it shoots out the back its plain wrong.

I honestly don't recall that try. As a blues fan you try to forget Origin more often than not. As a Panthers fan its kinda the same I guess.

Thank f**k Australia is atleast decent
 

mxlegend99

Referee
Messages
23,004
It doesn't matter though since he's lost the ball into McGuire who has then propelled the ball backwards.

The most important element here is whether McGuire was effecting a tackle or was simply looking to strip the footy.
Thats flat out wrong. He hasnt lost the ball into McGuire. He was holding it and had control when McGuire hit it out backwards.

McGuire knocked it out. Wallace didnt lose it into him. Wallace had control as McGuire struck it out.

His intentions mean nothing as from that point it all went backwards. It wasnt lose into him. It was hit out by him.

Must have been a Queenslander in the box if they consider an arming smashing the ball out of a players hands being lost into that arm. Thats like saying Myles headbutted Gallens fist in Origin.
 

Frank_Grimes

First Grade
Messages
6,996
Did the ball travel forward from the time he lost it? Or did it shoot out backward?

Because if it travelled forwards atleast their argument (while wrong) has some sort of logic. If it shoots out the back its plain wrong.

I honestly don't recall that try. As a blues fan you try to forget Origin more often than not. As a Panthers fan its kinda the same I guess.

Thank f**k Australia is atleast decent

It's hard to argue it even bounced. But if it did you would say forward as it was straight down.

 

Nice Beaver

First Grade
Messages
5,920
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.

Yeah the Origin example is I gues the best example.

Don't agree with the rule if thats how they deem it, but can't have it both ways.

As long as they are consistent I guess its the same shitty rule for all.
 

wibble

Bench
Messages
4,661
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.

I don't know what the interpretation (official) of the Thaiday no try was, but it is nothing like the Tamou no try.

I would be happy to rule all of these no try, and say that players should hang on to the ball. I also accept that in the field of play, a lost ball due to a strip, or even a possible strip, is often ruled a knock on and often ruled play on, and it is very inconsistent, but the referee only has a fraction of a second and one look.

But the reason we are shocked at the decision is that a ball knocked out by an opponent, without having lost possession before the opponent touches it, is nearly always ruled play on when the advantage of replays can view it. I don't necessarily like it, but it is common.

The Thaiday no try could be considered similar, but there is a possibility the ball comes free regardless of if Hayne plays at it, and there was no doubt the ball leaves Thaiday's possession and travels forward.

When the ball is propelled backwards by the defender (backwards relative to the attacker), and the attacker loses it only from the ball being propelled backwards, I don't think I've ever seen that called a knock on before.

I'd be happy if it always is, but it won't be.
 

Big Pete

Referee
Messages
28,939
Thats flat out wrong. He hasnt lost the ball into McGuire. He was holding it and had control when McGuire hit it out backwards.

McGuire knocked it out. Wallace didnt lose it into him. Wallace had control as McGuire struck it out.

His intentions mean nothing as from that point it all went backwards. It wasnt lose into him. It was hit out by him.

Must have been a Queenslander in the box if they consider an arming smashing the ball out of a players hands being lost into that arm. Thats like saying Myles headbutted Gallens fist in Origin.

Unless McGuire is deemed to have intentionally stripped the football, it doesn't matter whether it was hit out by him. The elements at play is whether Wallace has lost the football and it's made contact with the opposition player.
 

wibble

Bench
Messages
4,661
Unless McGuire is deemed to have intentionally stripped the football, it doesn't matter whether it was hit out by him. The elements at play is whether Wallace has lost the football and it's made contact with the opposition player.

Then that is a different standard compared to "playing at the ball" when a pass is made, and another stupid inconsistency in the rules (I hate that standard, but it has been that way for decades).

Has there been any precedent where hitting the ball with your hand has not been playing at it, or is this the precedent?
 

thorson1987

Coach
Messages
16,907
Unless McGuire is deemed to have intentionally stripped the football, it doesn't matter whether it was hit out by him. The elements at play is whether Wallace has lost the football and it's made contact with the opposition player.

And at no stage what so ever did wallace lose control of the ball until it was hit out of his hands by McGuire.
 

Big Pete

Referee
Messages
28,939
And at no stage what so ever did wallace lose control of the ball until it was hit out of his hands by McGuire.

Which is enough to constitute a knock on.

wibble said:
Has there been any precedent where hitting the ball with your hand has not been playing at it, or is this the precedent?

Good question mate.

Given how bizarre the play was, I'd be interested to see if there were any comparable examples. The only one that comes to mind was the '08 World Cup and in that instance they deemed Laffranchi stripped the football. However there could have been other elements at play.
 

myrrh ken

First Grade
Messages
9,817
With the Thaiday no try, it goes straight down. he has to regather or control before grounding. He doesn't.
 

wibble

Bench
Messages
4,661
Yeah - the Thaiday origin no try.

Was that the ruling? Because I think he definitely hit the ball, so if it was ruled as not playing at it then it was indeed similar to the Tamou no try.

If it was, we have a terrible (though not unsurprising) situation where referees don't have to rule intention from a defender if their hand hits a passed ball, but do have to rule "intention" if the ball is still in possession.

But as I said, players can be ruled to strip the ball and it goes backwards/forwards off the ball carrier still, and they rule it knock on or not based on the direction the ball goes after the strip, and there is no doubt Thaiday "knocked it on" after the strip.

Whereas Wallace did not have the ball travel forward into a player prior to the strip. I know if it bounces off a defenders head like that they will rule knock on, but a "strip" behind the player, from a player in front, has not been a knock on.

Stripping is such a bad rule, it creates a bucket load of controversy. Should be, players hang on to the ball they are OK, lose it and too bad for them...
 

_Johnsy

Referee
Messages
27,270
Would have the ball been dislodged from Wallace's hands had Maguire's hand not made contact? No
Did Maguire's hand make contact, forcing the ball out of Wallace's grasp? Yes

I don't care for complex interpretations, it's a fairly simple decision that should be based on the 2 questions above. I wonder what a ref would have ruled before the bunker or video refs were introduced?
 

Doomednow

Bench
Messages
3,133
This is the dumbest f**king discussion I've ever seen. Bronco hits the ball out of his hand. Intentionally or not who cares. Ball goes backwards and is regathered by Panther. Play on.

Trying to contort some loose carry bullshit into "he lost the ball forward into opposition player" even though he quite obviously, in real terms, did not, is ridiculous. Let's overcomplicate some simple bullshit in the name of justifying shitty adjudicating that benefits my team insignificantly. f**king hell.

It was shit decision based on a shit interpretation. The game is better off if it doesn't happen.
 

Munted

Bench
Messages
4,216
so if Wallace was passing the ball to a teammate instead and Maguire knocked the ball down in midair, and it went towards the Panthers tryline, is that a Panthers knock-on?
No.
There in lies the issue.
f**king nrl, making it complicated.
 

Exsilium

First Grade
Messages
9,517
The NRL is a farce. Wait, we knew this already.

Archer is a puppet. Last year it was Buettner and the MRC.

The game can never be wrong and they sure as shit won't be wrong a week after the Milford "knock on".
 

Canard

Immortal
Messages
34,147
For mine, there is no way you could rule Wallace lost control, and it should have been play on, like it would have been anywhere else on the field.

There is all sorts of precedents that would be set by this ruling being consistently applied.
 

Latest posts

Top