'14 // 4N Wk 2 // Sun 4pm // AUS 16-12 ENG // AAMI

[Y2Eel]

You cant overrule the onfield referee without sufficient evidence. No frame proves downward pressure. All any frame shows is his fingertip brushing the ball. You couldnt possibly have less pressure forcing the ball down short of missing it entirely.

Yes his finger bends, as the ball is bouncing from the ground and his lack of pressure fails to change the bounce. The vudeo referee got it right and explained why. Just look at the frames and tell mehow they prpve downward pressure when the end he has a finger tip on continues to rise and bend his finger back as it does so. He didnt get enough of a grip or pressure on the ball to ground it, he brushed it as it was on the ground.With no pressure at all. Those frames prove this to be the case, and at the very least offer enough doubt to stick with the onfield decision.

I guarantee had Australia been in that situation, people would blow up massively had the try been awarded despite no proof of downward pressure and the onfield decision being no try.

In motion its obvious his touch has zero effect on the ball. Hou could a pinkie brushing the end of a ball for a hundredth of a second effect the ball? Thays why his pinkie bends and the ball keeps bouncing on its path.

The hell did i just half read...

It is simple is ball on ground.. Yes

Is hand fingers knob touch ball Yes

Is pressure on ball.. Yes his bloody pinky is bending from pressure..


All this crap being made up about ball bouncing up blah blah its touch ground its a try ffs..

 

[no name]

If he had pressure on the ball it would have changed the flight of the ball.

 

[miguel de cervantes]

You cant overrule the onfield referee without sufficient evidence. No frame proves downward pressure. All any frame shows is his fingertip brushing the ball. You couldnt possibly have less pressure forcing the ball down short of missing it entirely.

Yes his finger bends, as the ball is bouncing from the ground and his lack of pressure fails to change the bounce. The vudeo referee got it right and explained why. Just look at the frames and tell mehow they prpve downward pressure when the end he has a finger tip on continues to rise and bend his finger back as it does so. He didnt get enough of a grip or pressure on the ball to ground it, he brushed it as it was on the ground.With no pressure at all. Those frames prove this to be the case, and at the very least offer enough doubt to stick with the onfield decision.

I guarantee had Australia been in that situation, people would blow up massively had the try been awarded despite no proof of downward pressure and the onfield decision being no try.

In motion its obvious his touch has zero effect on the ball. Hou could a pinkie brushing the end of a ball for a hundredth of a second effect the ball? Thays why his pinkie bends and the ball keeps bouncing on its path.

I can't agree more with every aspect of this post.

The fact we are on page 66 of this thread alone suggests the evidence for a try is not conclusive.

Let's move on. It is simply not in the spirit of the game for hair splitting decisions to be made in this manner.

 

[mxlegend99]

The hell did i just half read...

It is simple is ball on ground.. Yes

Is hand fingers knob touch ball Yes

Is pressure on ball.. Yes his bloody pinky is bending from pressure..


All this crap being made up about ball bouncing up blah blah its touch ground its a try ffs..

His finger bent because the ball bounced up bending his finger back which was very slightly in the path of the bouncing ball. A finger on the ground doesnt automatically equal downward pressure. Or else that wouldnt be a requirement for a try.

If I bent your finger back with my hand, would you say you were applying pressure to my hand with your finger? Thats what the ball has done to his finger, and his little touch didnt even stop the end of the ball he touched from leaving the ground first. Meaning theres no pressure. Surely you would expect downward pressure to atleast hold his end of the ball down and for the other end to.lift first.

But it didnt. The ball bounced upwards bending his pinkie back as if it was never there anyway. it was a knock on. simple as that.

The video shows no downward pressure. All it proves is he made contact, and in motion and frame sequence that contact was a knock on, not a grounding of the ball with downward pressure.

 

[miguel de cervantes]

Hall missed a good chance to knock Australia out of final for the first time in 60 years by about 10cm. Wasn't even fully outstretched either.

 

[dibviking]

you cant overrule the onfield referee without sufficient evidence. No frame proves downward pressure. All any frame shows is his fingertip brushing the ball. You couldnt possibly have less pressure forcing the ball down short of missing it entirely.

Yes his finger bends, as the ball is bouncing from the ground and his lack of pressure fails to change the bounce. The vudeo referee got it right and explained why. Just look at the frames and tell mehow they prpve downward pressure when the end he has a finger tip on continues to rise and bend his finger back as it does so. He didnt get enough of a grip or pressure on the ball to ground it, he brushed it as it was on the ground.with no pressure at all. Those frames prove this to be the case, and at the very least offer enough doubt to stick with the onfield decision.

I guarantee had australia been in that situation, people would blow up massively had the try been awarded despite no proof of downward pressure and the onfield decision being no try.

In motion its obvious his touch has zero effect on the ball. Hou could a pinkie brushing the end of a ball for a hundredth of a second effect the ball? Thays why his pinkie bends and the ball keeps bouncing on its path.

 

[mxlegend99]

Then the referee was only looking for which restart was correct. A dropout or a 20m restart. He, like everyone else didn't consider a try as remotely possible. They got the correct result in the end.

Had the BOTD rule still existed, he gets a try. But they dont give tries for being near very often anymore. Unless they cant overturn an onfield decision.

 

[Perth Red]

Have the RLIF adopted the NRL vr ref rule? Ie ref makes a decision and vr has to be sure he is wrong? Both the NRL refs seem to think so but there is no announcement this is the case. Classic example of the problems you get when one sport is played to multiple rules.

 

[macnaz]

How many times does it need to be said. There's no downward pressure. Those frames confirm it if you look at frame 2, then at what has happened since then in frame 3.

The tip of his finger brushes the end of the ball which is already leaving the ground and continues to do so after he brushes it, bending his fingers back. as the referee explained, the ball was rising.

The end his finger touches is slightly off the ground in frame 2, and moreso in frame 3. If he had any pressure it changes the bounce of the ball and the other end lifts first.

Onfield explanation was correct. The ball was rising. That bent his fingers, not downward pressure. No try. Knock on.

If the ball was rising .. where is the day light under the ball to suggest that ?
Anyway 50 50 and which doesnt bother me , I was more pissed of about stupid piggy back penalties for holding in the ruck... both sides did it but the calls didnt necessarily reflect that.

 

[Y2Eel]

His finger bent because the ball bounced up bending his finger back which was very slightly in the path of the bouncing ball. A finger on the ground doesnt automatically equal downward pressure. Or else that wouldnt be a requirement for a try.

If I bent your finger back with my hand, would you say you were applying pressure to my hand with your finger? Thats what the ball has done to his finger, and his little touch didnt even stop the end of the ball he touched from leaving the ground first. Meaning theres no pressure. Surely you would expect downward pressure to atleast hold his end of the ball down and for the other end to.lift first.

But it didnt. The ball bounced upwards bending his pinkie back as if it was never there anyway. it was a knock on. simple as that.

The video shows no downward pressure. All it proves is he made contact, and in motion and frame sequence that contact was a knock on, not a grounding of the ball with downward pressure.

So he had nooooooooooooo pressure at all on the ball none at all he wasnt moving forward reaching forward hand stretched out...

Like i said Ball on ground? Yep

Finger on ball.. Yep

Try anyone else making other crap up better not complain about a ref decision again....

 

[mxlegend99]

So he had nooooooooooooo pressure at all on the ball none at all he wasnt moving forward reaching forward hand stretched out...

Like i said Ball on ground? Yep

Finger on ball.. Yep

Try anyone else making other crap up better not complain about a ref decision again....

:lol:

You have no concept of whay downward pressure is, do you? The player needs to be forcing the ball into the ground. That is clearly not happening.

Downward pressure would have forced the end he touched into the ground and the other end would have lifted up first as a result. But the end he was touching had upward force and bent his finger back. As the referee said, the ball was rising. A fingertip brushing the ball wasnt able to ground a spinning ball. Its simply a knock on.

No downward pressure. No try. Simple as that. Those are the rules, and they were applied correctly.

 

[TheFrog]

:lol:

You have no concept of whay downward pressure is, do you? The player needs to be forcing the ball into the ground. That is clearly not happening.

Downward pressure would have forced the end he touched into the ground and the other end would have lifted up first as a result. But the end he was touching had upward force and bent his finger back. As the referee said, the ball was rising. A fingertip brushing the ball wasnt able to ground a spinning ball. Its simply a knock on.

No downward pressure. No try. Simple as that. Those are the rules, and they were applied correctly.

I don't agree the ball was rising but its all fish and chip wrappers now.

On another note will Sheens give Moylan a run or will he retain Inglis at the back on the grounds that Aus need to make up about 20 points in F/A. I'd put Inglis in the centres and rest Walker.

 

[mxlegend99]

When you look at the progress of the ball, it was rising with the end nearest hall lifting first. But yeah its a pointless arguement now. Whether people agree or not, doesnt change the outcome.

No way Moylan gets a run. Sheens will pick what he thinks is our best 17 as Samoa aren't the pushover side the fourth nation usually is, and we need the win. Unless Walker gets dropped and Inglis.goes to centre.

 

[alien]

if inglis goes to centre he will probably get less involved when we need him to get more involved. if australia has a good completion rate then they'll be right

 

[Y2Eel]

:lol:

You have no concept of whay downward pressure is, do you? The player needs to be forcing the ball into the ground. That is clearly not happening.

Downward pressure would have forced the end he touched into the ground and the other end would have lifted up first as a result. But the end he was touching had upward force and bent his finger back. As the referee said, the ball was rising. A fingertip brushing the ball wasnt able to ground a spinning ball. Its simply a knock on.

No downward pressure. No try. Simple as that. Those are the rules, and they were applied correctly.

Oh i have concept but when people start to over analyze it to make their point which is wrong..

Again..

Answer these..

Ball on ground?

Hand finger whatever on ball?

Simple isnt it its a simple game League...

 

[mxlegend99]

Oh i have concept but when people start to over analyze it to make their point which is wrong..

Again..

Answer these..

Ball on ground?

Hand finger whatever on ball?

Simple isnt it its a simple game League...

I think you're a bit simple. That's not the criteria for a try. :lol:

The ball must have down downward pressure as it is grounded. A fingertip touching the side of a bouncing ball is not downward pressure. It's a knock-on.

Without that bit of criteria being met, you can't award a try. Not unless the referee has sent it up as a try and the evidence isn't strong enough to overturn it.

You answer these questions:

When Ryan Hall brushes the end of the ball, is the end he touches slightly higher then the other end of the ball?

When Ryan Halls fingers are bent back, has the end of the ball that he is touching risen even higher then when he first made contact?

With the above two answer both being yes, I think that's a pretty good basis for what the referee explained when the no try decision was made. The ball was rising. If the ball is rising, that means there's no downward pressure and that the force was going up (as the ball is bouncing) and that's what bends his fingers back.

Whether you agree with that or not. It's the decision that was made, and if you care to look at the situation as a whole it's a justified decision with an explanation that holds up the more you look at it. It's not cheating as some would claim, and it's not a case of a finger touching the ball means a try. Hell if you look at it that's even a generous recount of what happened. It's a fingertip brushing the ball as it bounces. The ball has all the force and momentum. People keep focusing on the finger, and don't look at the ball and how it has changed between frames.

 

[macnaz]

So he had nooooooooooooo pressure at all on the ball none at all he wasnt moving forward reaching forward hand stretched out...

Like i said Ball on ground? Yep

Finger on ball.. Yep

Try anyone else making other crap up better not complain about a ref decision again....

No the ball was rising. .. cant u see that like some claim lol. just need photo shop to clone in some grass under the ball to prove it... bottom line vid refs shit themselves and had to make something up. Unfortunately the shit they made up wasnt relevant to what actually happened . Seen it b4 and will again.

 

[Y2Eel]

I think you're a bit simple. That's not the criteria for a try. :lol:

The ball must have down downward pressure as it is grounded. A fingertip touching the side of a bouncing ball is not downward pressure. It's a knock-on.

Without that bit of criteria being met, you can't award a try. Not unless the referee has sent it up as a try and the evidence isn't strong enough to overturn it.

You answer these questions:

When Ryan Hall brushes the end of the ball, is the end he touches slightly higher then the other end of the ball?

When Ryan Halls fingers are bent back, has the end of the ball that he is touching risen even higher then when he first made contact?

With the above two answer both being yes, I think that's a pretty good basis for what the referee explained when the no try decision was made. The ball was rising. If the ball is rising, that means there's no downward pressure and that the force was going up (as the ball is bouncing) and that's what bends his fingers back.

Whether you agree with that or not. It's the decision that was made, and if you care to look at the situation as a whole it's a justified decision with an explanation that holds up the more you look at it. It's not cheating as some would claim, and it's not a case of a finger touching the ball means a try. Hell if you look at it that's even a generous recount of what happened. It's a fingertip brushing the ball as it bounces. The ball has all the force and momentum. People keep focusing on the finger, and don't look at the ball and how it has changed between frames.

Wow i said Simple it looks like you are trying to make excuses am i right??

Ok Ball touching green stuff?? Yes

Hand finger schlong on ball? Yes

Its pretty simple.. Unless you are trying to reinvent the wheel....

 

[Y2Eel]

You answer these questions:

When Ryan Hall brushes the end of the ball, is the end he touches slightly higher then the other end of the ball?

When Ryan Halls fingers are bent back, has the end of the ball that he is touching risen even higher then when he first made contact?

What the squid balls?

Ball Ground hand touch ball Try

I am not going to start on how many different reasons I can prove your finger bending ball bouncing touching thingy theory wrong..

League simple thats it Black white...

 

[no name]

So your saying it shouldn't have been a try because Inglis grounded it first.
Got it.