innsaneink
Referee
- Messages
- 29,365
Yes weve concluded it was a legitimate try.
Timmah = fail.
Timmah = fail.
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
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.
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.
You don't know that. In fact the referee had clearly deemed it as play on.If someone had dived on his chest to secure the ball it would've been deemed a flop.
When the player isn't held.Timmah (poll question) said:since when can you pass off the ground?
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
Seems to be one or two folk who are taking exception to opposing opinion.
You mean like you insisting that another tackler would have been penalised for a flop?Only on LU would you get a bunch of people pulling out the rule book. It doesn't even prove anything in this instance.
Nonsense. He was not 'lying there like he was shot'.Hooch said: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.
lol. Sure.Hooch said:I take exception to abject stupidity
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.
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.
thats just pure fantasyPrior 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.
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.
Can you link us to where those rules are?
(not questioning the legitimacy, would be very handy to have a link to them)
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.
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