Beau Scott/Matt Prior - try/no try

[BDGS]

IMO he as was the ground with a player on him, that's a tackle.

 

[Hooch]

LOL...forget the photo...they dont freeze once they hit the deck, there was still momentum

I saw the game champ, all momentum was taken from him and he was lying on his back like a dead bug. He looked up and old mate was there, thought oh well I'll just give him the ball then.

If someone had dived on his chest to secure the ball it would've been deemed a flop.

The defence was dominant and they should've got the benefit.

 

[RedVee]

In live play i thought it was a try. By the last reply I have serious doubts. So... I'm stumped. No each way bet option?

One thing though is that the passing (handing?) motion was started before he was on his back.

 

[innsaneink]

I saw the game champ, all momentum was taken from him and he was lying on his back like a dead bug. He looked up and old mate was there, thought oh well I'll just give him the ball then.

If someone had dived on his chest to secure the ball it would've been deemed a flop.

The defence was dominant and they should've got the benefit.

A flop is on the defensive side of things, we are clearly debating an attacking issue.
Two very different issues.
He was still moving as he handed it off, backwards forwards doesnt matter it all depends n the refs interpretation.

He looked up and old mate was there, thought oh well I'll just give him the ball then.

Yep...as the ref hadnt called held he's entitled to do that

 

[innsaneink]

Speed of a replay has no bearing ffs. He was tackled and passed the ball off the ground.

Who decided he was tackled???

The main point youre clearly ignoring for no other reason that it destroys your weak case.

 

[Bazal]

No try, pretty clear cut. He was on the ground, held, with no momentum so the ball carrying arm has nothing to do with it. If this was Super 15, sure....but it isn't.

 

[Timmah]

Fact is, whatever any of us say now is irrelevant, it's on the scoreboard and the result was 15-10.

This attitude is what shits me. I'm not debating the results, I'm debating a ruling. I'm not asking a result to be reversed or calling the Dragons cheats. Judging by the result of the poll and the level of serious discussion so far it's an extremely contentious call.

Who decided he was tackled???

The main point youre clearly ignoring for no other reason that it destroys your weak case.

I'd love to see a section in the rule book where it states a tackle is only effected if the referee calls "held"...

No try, pretty clear cut. He was on the ground, held, with no momentum so the ball carrying arm has nothing to do with it. If this was Super 15, sure....but it isn't.

This is my concern, it was a rugby style "give the ball out the back of the tackle" style thing.

 

[innsaneink]

Still ignoring the main issue.

 

[Timmah]

What main issue? The player was tackled, on his back, on the ground, with an opposition player on him, and he handed the ball back to a fellow player.

 

[Azkatro]

Well if the video ref was ONLY meant to check on the grounding, I have no problem with the decision. Some refs might have called it back for passing off the ground but them's the breaks. On the night it was deemed legitimate and that's all that matters.

 

[innsaneink]

What main issue? The player was tackled, on his back, on the ground, with an opposition player on him, and he handed the ball back to a fellow player.

Who said he was tackled?
Only you.
The ref clearly hadnt at that stage and was in no dispute.
The ref, the person in charge of controlling the game is the main issue

 

[innsaneink]

I'd love to see a section in the rule book where it states a tackle is only effected if the referee calls "held"...

.

I never said that was the case, Refs dont need to call held every single tackle, some cases it is obvious the tackle is complete.
The held call is a discretionary power for the ref in doubtful situations.

 

[kurt faulk]

What main issue? The player was tackled, on his back, on the ground, with an opposition player on him, and he handed the ball back to a fellow player.

prior plucked the ball out of his hands while he was still moving backwards. the exchange ended when scott was on his back. i didn't even think about it until the 9 commentators started crying like the dumb f**ks they are.

if the 9 commentators say one thing you know the exact opposite is true.

.

 

[Timmah]

Last I checked the video referee was able to check the entire lead up play, that includes back to Soward's cross field kick and even the play the ball before Soward got it.

 

[Timmah]

prior plucked the ball out of his hands while he was still moving backwards. the exchange ended when scott was on his back. i didn't even think about it until the 9 commentators started crying like the dumb f**ks they are.

if the 9 commentators say one thing you know the exact opposite is true.

.

:lol: That's some sound logic there... :sarcasm:

 

[ME SO HORNBY!]

Does that mean each time a tackle player doesn't get put to the ground he may pass instead of playing the ball?

Not if the referee calls held which is what happens in those cases.

Arm didn't touch the ground, still rolling back, held never called, therefore a fair try.

 

[Gaba]

Last I checked the video referee was able to check the entire lead up play, that includes back to Soward's cross field kick and even the play the ball before Soward got it.

yes, but they mostly do what they are told by the ref, if the ref says he wants to check the pass or grounding only they will do that.


Harrigan admitted that in the inglis and soward incident , he said if he looked at the whole lead up, he wouldnt have gave the storm the 8 point try it would have been a penalty to the dragons inglis was the first offense by grabbing soward's throat , he was only told to look at the put down and the legs of soward

 

[The Gambler]

The way I see it, if that play had occured in the middle of the field with no try scored, I reckon the referee would have blown a penalty.

Common sense tells me that the player was tackled, especially if watched in real time.

 

[Timmah]

yes, but they mostly do what they are told by the ref, if the ref says he wants to check the pass or grounding only they will do that.


Harrigan admitted that in the inglis and soward incident , he said if he looked at the whole lead up, he wouldnt have gave the storm the 8 point try it would have been a penalty to the dragons inglis was the first offense by grabbing soward's throat , he was only told to look at the put down and the legs of soward

That seems ludicrous to me - the VR can advise the referee if he sees foul play in general play if there's a break in play, but can't pick up his own obvious observations if the ref doesn't ask for that part of the lead-up play to be looked at?

Embarrassing. Almost as embarrassing as VR's not being able to rule on fwd passes.

 

[aussie7798]

seriously guys i will post this again you may not like the rule as it is currently written but the call to award the try was 1000% correct according to the rules

if you follow the interpretation below it is not possible to come to any other conclusion

. A player in possession is tackled:
Grounded
(a) when he is held by one or more opposing players
and the ball or the hand or arm holding the ball
comes into contact with the ground.
(b) when he is held by one or more opposing players
in such a manner that he can make no further
progress and cannot part with the ball.
(c) when, being held by an opponent, the tackled
player makes it evident that he has succumbed to
the tackle and wishes to be released in order to
play the ball.
(d) when he is lying on the ground and an opponent
places a hand on him.

If a tackled player loses possession of the ball at the moment of
impact with an opponent or with the ground, play shall proceed
unless stopped for some other reason, e.g. the ball has been
knocked forward. A player in possession brought to his knees or
brought to the ground on his back may still pass the ball – provided
he has not made it evident that he has succumbed to the tackle. He
should not be wrongly penalised otherwise all players will become
reluctant to pass the ball as the tackle nears completion in case they too are penalised. The continuity of play would consequently be
adversely and unnecessarily affected.

This really lays it out simply for those of you who still dont get it read all the rules and understand it

Part B is obviously not a issue as the ball was passed.

Part D of the first section is clearly under the control of the highlighted section in the second quote in this instance. You can not argue against these facts.