Beau Scott/Matt Prior - try/no try

[Timmah]

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.

:lol: So you think the status of the tackle in question is in no way questionable? :lol: Talk about arrogant.

 

[aussie7798]

i really cant believe that all you people are incabable of deciphering what is a fairly straight forward wording of the laws of the game



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.

Simple whether you like the rule or not this is the law that governs this situation

 

[thommo4pm]

:lol: So you think the status of the tackle in question is in no way questionable? :lol: Talk about arrogant.

Arrogant? :roll:
You are wrong, that's all there is to it.

Did you see the pass Slater did late in the match tonight? His momentum had completely stopped, all players had stopped, yet he passed the ball. Refs called play on, do you dispute that one also?

 

[thommo4pm]

i really cant believe that all you people are incabable of deciphering what is a fairly straight forward wording of the laws of the game



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.

Simple whether you like the rule or not this is the law that governs this situation

It seems a little difficult for some to understand.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Try - and the refs and video ref agreed. and funny enough the refs know the rules better than me and indeed by reading the comments on this forum the refs know better than most.

Try

 

[Stagger Lee]

i really cant believe that all you people are incabable of deciphering what is a fairly straight forward wording of the laws of the game



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.

Simple whether you like the rule or not this is the law that governs this situation

I can understand the above law, so can the refs, it is only some ch9 opinions that has inflamed the debate.

Try

 

[Hooch]

Yeah I'm pretty much making it up as I go, I think I was half cut and peering at it over a beer, but its more fun when people fire up.

PS. Bullshit call, everyone thought it was a penalty except the refs and drongo Dragons fans.

 

[Gaba]

sutton was 10 metres out and landed on his back with a defender on him and done a similar thing to scott and got told to play on

 

[Slackboy72]

sutton was 10 metres out and landed on his back with a defender on him and done a similar thing to scott and got told to play on

You're not suggesting the refs applied the rules as they are written to another team on another part of the field. Outrageous.

 

[innsaneink]

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.

If he loses the ball....as you say, its a loose carry.
If its a strip its a strip....cant be both son.

But you are now talking about this one incident, where before you were talking about why didnt teams do this all the time.

MAKE UP YOUR FREAKIN MIND!

 

[ANTiLAG]

If he loses the ball....as you say, its a loose carry.
If its a strip its a strip....cant be both son.

But you are now talking about this one incident, where before you were talking about why didnt teams do this all the time.

MAKE UP YOUR FREAKIN MIND!

"If he lost the ball - it would have the result of a strip and thus a penalty"

How f*n dumb are you?

loses ball: then it was stripped out ergo penalty awarded.

He aint going to lose the ball 99.9% of the time with two hands on it!

Where before was I about why teams not doing this before in your speak?

Well most teams would have though it was a penalty. Its what teh rules suggest it is. You're on your back, a tackler has ahold of you, you cannot hold the ball up for your team mate to take it out of your hands....

The rest of the world thought it was a penalty offence. If its not - then I expect to see a whole lot more of it! Lets see the Saints reaction if its what costs you guys a final or grand final this year

 

[innsaneink]

Wow...you edited that and it still makes no sense.
Dont drink & post.

 

[cleary89]

No 5 page thread on the warriors last try....

 

[BM1979]

No 5 page thread on the warriors last try....

Now your comparing Apples with Oranges.

We all dont have to agree with you and you dont have to agree with others, lets just move on and concentrate and next week

 

[Jono1987]

Wish the refs would stop handing us games now, I'd rather that happen later in the year...

Watching it on Friday I honestly didn't know whether it was a try or not. I wouldn't have been upset if it was given no try. To those that say this has opened up a can of worms...I bet it doesn't happen again for the entire year. It was an anomaly.

 

[oldmancraigy]

Reminiscent of Jim Dymocks pass off the ground - except nowhere near as bad.

That one was given as a try too!

(I can't find a picture for it sadly)

 

[Packy]

We don't play Union.

No try.

 

[Willow]

There are three things that are certain...

Death, taxes and Canterbury supporters whinging.

 

[Timmah]

:lol: You'd love it to be that simple wouldn't you?

This should've been a troll free thread...

 

[ME SO HORNBY!]

:lol: You'd love it to be that simple wouldn't you?

This should've been a troll free thread...

i.e. An everybody agrees with Timmah thread :sarcasm: