James Tamou no-try

[myrrh ken]

and since it made contact with an opponent it's deemed a knock on from the point Wallace has lost the football.

That's not a rule. The definition of knock on doesn't include such a deeming provision.

The only thing that I can think that the bunker was thinking is that the ball travelled straight down and intepreted it as forward. But clearly it went backwards

 

[no name]

I see it as the same as when a defender touches the ball in flight.
The defender doesn't have to be playing at it to be ruled 6 again.
It was clearly knocked out by McGuire (accidental or not) and the kicker is it clearly went back towards Penrith's goal line.
I have no idea how they came up with the decision they did.

 

[Spot On]

I see it as the same as when a defender touches the ball in flight.
The defender doesn't have to be playing at it to be ruled 6 again.
It was clearly knocked out by McGuire (accidental or not) and the kicker is it clearly went back towards Penrith's goal line.
I have no idea how they came up with the decision they did.

No one, except maybe a few one eyed Bronco's fans, has any clue as to how they came up with it.

Many of us are watching a game that is not officiated the same way as it was in the past even though the basic rules of the game have not changed.

Somehow, for some unknown reason, more often than not a ball that hits the ground is simply called a knock on or deemed to have travelled forward when it is clear that it hasn't.

Archer, after some of his idiotic statements and obvious mistakes needs to be moved on ASAP but again, for some reason, he won't be.

 

[ed-grimley]

I see it as the same as when a defender touches the ball in flight.
The defender doesn't have to be playing at it to be ruled 6 again.
It was clearly knocked out by McGuire (accidental or not) and the kicker is it clearly went back towards Penrith's goal line.
I have no idea how they came up with the decision they did.

Neither do they dude.

 

[Canard]

Since Sutton deemed that McGuire didn't strip the ball, the only other alternative is that Wallace has lost the football and since it made contact with an opponent it's deemed a knock on from the point Wallace has lost the football. Since Wallace was looking to promote the football towards the try line when he's lost it, the ball is being promoted towards the opponent's try line and the only reason it has gone backwards is because of .

This is probably the source of frustration from most fans.

That the bunker can definitely rule that Wallace "lost" the ball but give McGuire the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't attempting a strip.

 

[johnny plath]

No one, except maybe a few one eyed Bronco's fans, has any clue as to how they came up with it.

Many of us are watching a game that is not officiated the same way as it was in the past even though the basic rules of the game have not changed.

Somehow, for some unknown reason, more often than not a ball that hits the ground is simply called a knock on or deemed to have travelled forward when it is clear that it hasn't.

Archer, after some of his idiotic statements and obvious mistakes needs to be moved on ASAP but again, for some reason, he won't be.

Commentators stir up a lot of the shit. First half of gold coast knights game yesterday peats had the ball knocked out trying to score. It went back and he regained just in field of play but they just called scrum. Players got on with it no drama and commentators didn't say shit. It doesn't cause the same outrage if it doesn't go to the bunker.

 

[THE CHAMP]

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.

point 4 is where your whinge fails. if it was about odds and betting the try would have been awarded. less than 1% of fts bets wiuld have been on tamao

 

[no name]

Commentators stir up a lot of the shit. First half of gold coast knights game yesterday peats had the ball knocked out trying to score. It went back and he regained just in field of play but they just called scrum. Players got on with it no drama and commentators didn't say shit. It doesn't cause the same outrage if it doesn't go to the bunker.

Because people are willing to accept the on fields ref decision as they have one look at it.
The bunker had 15 views on Thursday night and still f**ked it up.
I think the Titans should have been given a try also.

 

[TheVelourFog]

Whenever the ball hits the ground its a complete lottery as to whether it will be called knock-on

I would be all for a blanket rule to eliminate ambiguity eg. If you are facing towards the opposition try line and drop it = knock on

 

[TheVelourFog]

But whichever way you look at it this decision was a farce

 

[TheFrog]

I'm well aware of what's available, but it doesn't cover every single law and interpretations, especially in this case with an accidental strike forcing the ball loose.

So in such situations the Bunker makes up its own rules to allow it to rule in favour of the Broncos. Got it.

 

[ed-grimley]

This thread really puts the anal into analysis.

 

[Pete Cash]

Realistically I think it defies commonsense that a ball that literally NEVER went towards the Broncos dead ball line when it came loose could be called a knock on against Penrith

There should be some common sense in the game. If Wallace dropped the ball into Mcguire that is a completely different thing because the ball would have been propelled towards the broncos dead ball line.

Lets forget about the NRLs excuses for a moment. Lets get bronco emotion out of it. Should a ball that is NEVER lost towards the opposition dead ball line be a knock on. Does this not go against all Rugby League tradition and sense ???

 

[___]

I'm going to be accused of bias but I actually think the Bunker got this one right. I've seen knock-ons like Peter Wallace been called a thousand times. The ball ended up rolling forward, and Josh Mcguire didn't deliberately strip Wallace it was dropped because of Wallace's poor ball security.

I also think the media coverage has been over the top criticising this decision, considering the Tautau Moga decision had more legitimacy to be criticised.

Most fans are not blowing up too much because it's well been acknowledge that it didn't cost the Panthers the game. The Broncos were the better team, which Anthony Griffin acknowledge in his press conference.

Tony Archer has suggested the Bunker made the correct call. The replay is in the link.

http://wwos.nine.com.au/2017/04/28/03/34/bunker-got-penrith-no-try-right-nrl

Regardless of the intention to strip, the ball was propelled BACKWARDS. It doesn't matter how the ball was dislodged, what matters if the direction, it went back. If Wallace dropped it into JM's arm, then ok, but he didn't. The ball immediately went backwards and JT picks up and score. It was a fair try.

Now I'm not going to deny that the Broncos were the better team and deserved to win, but who knows what would've happened had that try been awarded.

We'll never know!