Beau Scott/Matt Prior - try/no try

[TV Ted Ellery]

Have you ever seen one of these polls that don't split in such a fashion, no matter which team benefitted from the decision?

Notwithstanding my point about parochial fans I was more interested in the vote of neutrals who theoretically have no vested interest in the decision. Of course, sometimes their judgment will be clouded by bias against a certain team.

 

[j0nesy]

Notwithstanding my point about parochial fans I was more interested in the vote of neutrals who theoretically have no vested interest in the decision. Of course, sometimes their judgment will be clouded by bias against a certain team.

Unlike BTron 7000 your point is well made.

 

[B-Tron 3000]

Let's go with your agument that the player was on the ground and the tackle was complete. Then would the Bulldogs have been penalised if they went on with the tackle?

Probably not, but the refs are constantly letting players roll all over the tackled player anyway these days, depsite Harrigan's appointment and the "crack-down" on the play-the-ball.

I think that if the player who had hold of him (yes, he was held) roughed him up a bit, then it would have been allowed, regardless of what tackle it was. But if another player came in over the top then it would have been a penalty had it not been the last tackle.

 

[B-Tron 3000]

Unlike BTron 7000 your point is well made.

What, the bit where I point out the rules to you is not clear enough?

 

[[FKN-SIK]]

Now we know when attacking the tryline, Ennis can take the ball out of a tackled player's hand and dive over the line. Great stuff. Should result in plenty of tries.....

 

[nrlnrl]

He lost it mate when attempting to ground it. it was obvious.

I had doubts until the last angle from across the other side of the ground was put to air. This clearly showed the ball didn't leave his hand - it was obvious.

 

[Slackboy72]

Those rules are clearly under the assumption the player isn't being touched/held by the defending team whilst on the ground.

You are a muppet.
Go read the rules please and show me where it says you can't pass off the ground.

Heres the full note:

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.

 

[gregstar]

I had doubts until the last angle from across the other side of the ground was put to air. This clearly showed the ball didn't leave his hand - it was obvious.

agreed.

 

[Walt Flanigan]

Tough one. IMO it looked ok at full speed but to the letter of the law (assuming Rabs was right) it should have been disallowed. Would have to say no try.

 

[Slackboy72]

The ref does not have to call held for a tackle to be complete!! That is ONE of the ways to complete a tackle and is normally only used when players are still standing.

If the arm carrying the ball hasn't touched the ground, the player hasn't submitted to the tackle or there is momentum forwards or backwards then YES he does have to call held for he tackle to be completed. The fact that Scott was being pushed back meant the tackle was not yet complete.

 

[j0nesy]

What, the bit where I point out the rules to you is not clear enough?

Not at all, in fact upon reading the rules in context I'm more convinced that the decision was correct.

 

[dubopov]

ref didn't call held, so he wasn't.

 

[Tweed Titan]

You are a muppet.
Go read the rules please and show me where it says you can't pass off the ground.

Heres the full note:

Nice name calling!

My point remains valid, THAT RULE IS IN REGARDS TO A PLAYER BEING ON THE GROUND BUT NOT TOUCHED/HELD BY THE OPPOSITION.

Maybe if you call me more names it will make your point more valid. :sarcasm:

Note that about 95% of neutrals tend to agree with my opinion.

 

[Slackboy72]

Nice name calling!

My point remains valid, THAT RULE IS IN REGARDS TO A PLAYER BEING ON THE GROUND BUT NOT TOUCHED/HELD BY THE OPPOSITION.

Maybe if you call me more names it will make your point more valid. :sarcasm:

Note that about 95% of neutrals tend to agree with my opinion.

Is english your second language?

 

[B-Tron 3000]

If the arm carrying the ball hasn't touched the ground, the player hasn't submitted to the tackle or there is momentum forwards or backwards then YES he does have to call held for he tackle to be completed. The fact that Scott was being pushed back meant the tackle was not yet complete.

I agree totally with your interpretation of the rules. However, your last line should read "Scott had been pushed back and there was no momentum so the tackle was complete."

 

[RHCP]

No try. Not only was Beau Scott held, there's a pretty big question mark over whether Prior grounded the ball correctly.

That being said, the first infringement was a 50/50 call which unfortunately for Bulldogs fans didn't go their way.

 

[Tweed Titan]

ref didn't call held, so he wasn't.

How many times does it have to be said that the ref doesn't have to call held to constitute a tackle???? :lol:

 

[Tweed Titan]

Is english your second language?

It is good to see you sticking to the point. :lol:

 

[Slackboy72]

How many times does it have to be said that the ref doesn't have to call held to constitute a tackle???? :lol:

So you still haven't read the rules eh?

 

[Iafeta]

No try. He had a bloke on him and still had time to roll his body over to prop the ball up. It certainly wasn't instantaneous or a quick release which you may allow suggesting there's a bit of momentum, he was tackled for all money.