Beau Scott/Matt Prior - try/no try

[innsaneink]

Yes weve concluded it was a legitimate try.
Timmah = fail.

 

[Timmah]

Can you link us to where those rules are?

(not questioning the legitimacy, would be very handy to have a link to them)

 

[aussie7798]

sorry timmah someone posted them up earlier in the thread and i am simply using them

 

[Hooch]

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

You dunno what youre talking about, the flop would have been called cos the tackle was clearly complete, they are both aspects of same ruck you dope.

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.

He had succumbed to the tackle. It was almost as if he woke up from a nap and handed the ball up.

Even Matty Prior after the game didnt seem surprised when Freddy asked him how on earth did you get that try. From memory Prior was readying for the play the ball when Scott gave it to him.

 

[aussie7798]

You dunno what youre talking about, the flop would have been called cos the tackle was clearly complete, they are both aspects of same ruck you dope.



He had succumbed to the tackle. It was almost as if he woke up from a nap and handed the ball up.

Even Matty Prior after the game didnt seem surprised when Freddy asked him how on earth did you get that try. From memory Prior was readying for the play the ball when Scott gave it to him.

A couple of things

it was last tackle if i remember correctly

what player in their right mind would stretch his arms out in a attempt to play the ball wouldnt it make it hard to stand up

really thats just a silly arguement

 

[Willow]

Seems to be one or two folk who are taking exception to opposing opinion.

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

You don't know that. In fact the referee had clearly deemed it as play on.

Looks like you're making it up as you go.

since when can you pass off the ground?

When the player isn't held.

 

[Hooch]

A couple of things

it was last tackle if i remember correctly

what player in their right mind would stretch his arms out in a attempt to play the ball wouldnt it make it hard to stand up

really thats just a silly arguement

Prior was readying for the play the ball. You know, standing behind the ruck, scanning the line, waiting for the play the ball. You're talking about Scott. Prior seemed as shocked as anyone when he Scott held the ball up for him.

There was a distinct second where everyone was sort of like, wtf, then Prior seized the moment.

They were all like that because the tackle was obviously complete.

Only on LU would you get a bunch of people pulling out the rule book. It doesn't even prove anything in this instance.

From a rules perspective the argument is over did he or did he not submit. Since he was lying there like he had been shot I contend he had submitted.

From a common sense perspective he was bloody tackled end of story.

Seems to be one or two folk who are taking exception to opposing opinion.

Not particularly. I take exception to abject stupidity, such as someone saying the attacking and defensive aspects of the one ruck are separate issues, as if you could have one without the other. You can't flop in defense unless the attack is considered finished for the play. You can't strip in defence unless the attack is considered ongoing etc etc etc

 

[dogslife]

Christ almighty, it was a 50/50 call, went the way of the dragons, shit happens, the better team won, lets get on with it shall we

 

[Willow]

Only on LU would you get a bunch of people pulling out the rule book. It doesn't even prove anything in this instance.

You mean like you insisting that another tackler would have been penalised for a flop?

From a rules perspective the argument is over did he or did he not submit. Since he was lying there like he had been shot I contend he had submitted.

Nonsense. He was not 'lying there like he was shot'.

If that's the basis of your argument, then you have no argument.

I take exception to abject stupidity

lol. Sure.

Leave you to it.

 

[dangerousdave]

Not making excuse and it was a good game from both sides but that was not a try, do it anywhere else on the field and see if it's play on but meh, that's footy and that sh!t happens.

Well it either had to be a penalty against dragons or a try...As no part of his upper body had hit the ground and there was no held call, a penalty would have been the wrong decision.

I dont think that would happen in the field of play. The canterbury players had no concern fo locking up the ball and were trying to keep scot from going over himself

 

[ANTiLAG]

Not making excuse and it was a good game from both sides but that was not a try, do it anywhere else on the field and see if it's play on but meh, that's footy and that sh!t happens.

Do it anywhyere else on the field and its union. Still, if the refs are consistent, teams should do this whenever possible wherever they are on the field, could turn a set of 6 into an indefinite set limited only by reaching the opposition try line.

 

[aussie7798]

Prior was readying for the play the ball. You know, standing behind the ruck, scanning the line, waiting for the play the ball. You're talking about Scott. Prior seemed as shocked as anyone when he Scott held the ball up for him.

There was a distinct second where everyone was sort of like, wtf, then Prior seized the moment.

They were all like that because the tackle was obviously complete.

Only on LU would you get a bunch of people pulling out the rule book. It doesn't even prove anything in this instance.

From a rules perspective the argument is over did he or did he not submit. Since he was lying there like he had been shot I contend he had submitted.

From a common sense perspective he was bloody tackled end of story.

thats just pure fantasy

 

[KiamaSaint]

In normal speed looked ok, in slow motion it looked no try however we don't play rugby league in slow motion.

 

[innsaneink]

Do it anywhyere else on the field and its union. Still, if the refs are consistent, teams should do this whenever possible wherever they are on the field, could turn a set of 6 into an indefinite set limited only by reaching the opposition try line.

Im sure if it was viable and practical teams would be doing this all the time, nothing illegal about it at all.
But with the emphasis so high on possesion, its a high risk/low percentage play anywhere but near the tryline where the reward is a try, anywhere else and the reward is minimal compared to the risk - ie loss of possesion

 

[Big Pete]

No try, both shoulders were on the ground when Keating had a hand on him.

 

[AJH]

Can you link us to where those rules are?

(not questioning the legitimacy, would be very handy to have a link to them)

If you haven't already found them - see p23.

http://admin.nrl.sportal.net.au/site/_content/document/00001820-source.pdf

Cheers

 

[Fingerbang]

Proof Hooch is making it up as he goes.....he says, Prior was shocked as he was standing there to go to dummyhalf because he thought Beau was tackled. Ummm, why would Prior be waiting to go dummyhalf if it was the last tackle. Scott wouldn't be playing the ball....it would have been a turnover.

 

[thommo4pm]

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.

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

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

Couldn't care less if it shits you or not.
Your debating on the ruling is incorrect which several people have pointed out and you choose to ignore it.

Are you seriously debating that the referee doesn't need to call held. They always call held or the tackle number. That is the worst statement in the thread so far.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Im sure if it was viable and practical teams would be doing this all the time, nothing illegal about it at all.
But with the emphasis so high on possesion, its a high risk/low percentage play anywhere but near the tryline where the reward is a try, anywhere else and the reward is minimal compared to the risk - ie loss of possesion

He had a tacklers hand on him and two hands on the ball. If he lost the ball - it would have been the result of a strip of a second player in the tackle and thus a penalty.

 

[muzby]

from side and front on, it was a try.. but when they showed the rear angle, it should have been a penalty..


we were very lucky to get the win last night..