Ben Cummins

[Desert Qlder]

Two contentious calls clearly went against Queensland.

First was a ridiculous knock on ruling against Scott. A crucial decision in perfect field position which led to the last NSW try. The ball never went forwards at any point yet Archer had no hesitation in making his outrageous decision.

Secondly was there being no penalty awarded for the professional foul on Inglis when tackled next to the post. Hayne literally dragged his leg into the in-goal and halted all momentum in the ruck. In truth it deserves a sin bin, but I can overlook that. A penalty though should have been awarded.

But Queensland rolled with this imperfect officiating and got the job done. Credit to them.

 

[Springs]

No I saw them:

A) Hannant didn't interfere with Farah - Farah chose to take Hannant and then stood there appealing and not chasing Hodges.
B) Hodges gained no advantage from running behind Hannant - he gained advantage from stepping outside Beau Scott.

:lol:

Yeah and Scott wasn't drawn in by Hannant or anything...

I'm wondering if you even know what the word advantage means.

Why are people whinging about the high tackle on Cronk? That's a penalty any day of the week in the NRL.
It doesn't matter if Cronk was slipping, contact was made - Penalty.
It's not that hard to understand.

I agree. Fair penalty. If I was hit in the head like that and the ref said 'that's fair' I would blow up.

The decoy didn't create a gap. Hodges ran a different line to Hannant and took on the line about 5-10 metres away from the spot Hannant ran into. Scott was still defending precisely where he would have been had there been no decoy. Scott had every opportunity to tackle Hodges after Hannant went through, but he held off him and let him step outside him to the try line.

Are you kidding?

Watch it again. Hannant runs through and draws in Scott and impedes Farah which creates the gap outside Scott and inside Carney which Hodges then runs into. If Hannant was not there Farah and Scott keep sliding and no gap opens up. Are you blind? If Scott didn't make that second futile effort to catch Hodges the ref would have blown the penalty on the spot.

 

[Vic Mackey]

No I saw them:

A) Hannant didn't interfere with Farah - Farah chose to take Hannant and then stood there appealing and not chasing Hodges.
B) Hodges gained no advantage from running behind Hannant - he gained advantage from stepping outside Beau Scott.

Agree with A

Disagree with B. Anybody who has played the game knows that if a ball runner goes behind a runner, even for a split second, they are out of sight and it changes your defensive line. That split second can be enough to give the ball runner an advantage that he shouldn't have, and that the defence shouldn't have to deal with.

The fact that both Wally and fatty said they don't think it was a try says this. If you don't think hodges didn't gain an advantage by running behind hannant then you've never played rugby league.

 

[age.s]

First was a ridiculous knock on ruling against Scott. A crucial decision in perfect field position which led to the last NSW try. The ball never went forwards at any point yet Archer had no hesitation in making his outrageous decision.

That went backwards because it initially went forward into a blues hand.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

First was a ridiculous knock on ruling against Scott. A crucial decision in perfect field position which led to the last NSW try. The ball never went forwards at any point yet Archer had no hesitation in making his outrageous decision.

It definitely wasn't a knock-on, but you couldn't really say it led to the last NSW try - QLD got the ball back a minute later when Lewis lost it.

 

[Desert Qlder]

That went backwards because it initially went forward into a blues hand.

Well I'd like to see it again if that is the case, certainly didn't notice it when replayed during the broadcast.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

That went backwards because it initially went forward into a blues hand.

Nope, Carney was in possession and threw it back to Scott. Knocked back from Scott and should have been play on.

 

[Desert Qlder]

It definitely wasn't a knock-on, but you couldn't really say it led to the last NSW try - QLD got the ball back a minute later when Lewis lost it.

Memory hazy. Thought it did.

 

[Desert Qlder]

Nope, Carney was in possession and threw it back to Scott. Knocked back from Scott and should have been play on.

That was my recollection of it.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

:lol:

Yeah and Scott wasn't drawn in by Hannant or anything...

No, he wasn't. Hannant ran a completely different line and Scott was where he would have been when Hodges got to him regardless of the decoy runner.

It was purely poor positioning from Scott who then held off Hodges and allowed him to get outside him.

 

[Springs]

In the end it's all just mostly noise from Blues fans who can't admit that QLD were the better team on the night.

The refs didn't alter the fact that NSW couldn't hold onto the ball at crucial moments. Nothing has been said yet about Hayne's second effort leg pull on Inglis as he got up to play the ball after crashing into the posts. That should have been a penalty right under the sticks.

Or the fact that the entire Blues defensive line was offside after Thurston's break downfield in the 33rd minute, although I'd like to think the ref was playing advantage with QLD on the attack.

Queensland were the better team on the night. Ta da. Happy?

 

[redvscotty]

Why are people whinging about the high tackle on Cronk? That's a penalty any day of the week in the NRL.
It doesn't matter if Cronk was slipping, contact was made - Penalty.
It's not that hard to understand.

So Ben Creaghs should have been a penalty as well?

Frank Grimes: Game 1: Do you think Inglis wasn't playing at the ball?

 

[Frank_Grimes]

Frank Grimes: Game 1: Do you think Inglis wasn't playing at the ball?

I think he was playing at the ball the whole time, but I also know he would have planted the ball securely if not for Farah sticking his boot in there.

 

[Joker's Wild]

No I saw them:

A) Hannant didn't interfere with Farah - Farah chose to take Hannant and then stood there appealing and not chasing Hodges.
B) Hodges gained no advantage from running behind Hannant - he gained advantage from stepping outside Beau Scott.

Dude, you have said that Farah chose to take Hannant a few times now and it simply isnt true. Watch it again and you'll see that once it was apparent Hannant wasnt getting the ball Farah slides right to cover and while doing that Hannant makes contact with him instead of pulling up as he had well and truly passed the ball carrier and could not have received the pass.

 

[Joker's Wild]

So Ben Creaghs should have been a penalty as well?

Frank Grimes: Game 1: Do you think Inglis wasn't playing at the ball?

No mate. Creagh made contact with a players hip, not a swinging arm. The Creagh head knock was totally different

 

[Frank_Grimes]

So Ben Creaghs should have been a penalty as well?

Also, no. Creagh was diving at the players legs and contact was made with the knee wasn't it?

Williams was wrong-footed and stuck his arm out and made contact. He could have taken his arm away but he chose to go through with the tackle causing the contact to Cronk's face.

 

[Springs]

No, he wasn't. Hannant ran a completely different line and Scott was where he would have been when Hodges got to him regardless of the decoy runner.

It was purely poor positioning from Scott who then held off Hodges and allowed him to get outside him.

I'm just going to have to assume you haven't seen it again. Scott is drawn in by Hannant, it's quite obvious there's no real point arguing.

 

[Vic Mackey]

Dude, you have said that Farah chose to take Hannant a few times now and it simply isnt true. Watch it again and you'll see that once it was apparent Hannant wasnt getting the ball Farah slides right to cover and while doing that Hannant makes contact with him instead of pulling up as he had well and truly passed the ball carrier and could not have received the pass.

I don't think hannants run is the issue at all. Even if he bowled farah over it wouldn't have made a difference a farah was never going to get near hodges.

It hodges running behind hannant that creates the advantage

 

[Bgoodorgoodatit]

theres always contentious decisions that go either way. high shots knock ons ruck penalties etc.

what i cant believe is how they awarded that hodges try. people saying that hanant didnt interfere with the defensive line are correct however, this would have only mattered had hodges passed behind hannant.

the second he runs behind his decoy runner its a penaly. hence why every weekend in the NRL you see players surrender to aviod a penalty when they inadvertently run behind one of their own players.

can you imagine the implications if this was allowed every week? it would be a free for all.

ricky should have instructed pearce and carney to run behind their decoys for the entire second half as that was the standard set in allowing that try.

maybe bill forget to send the memo regarding the rule change to ricky.

as i said plenty of decisions have grey area. that one is black and white every day of the week in the NRL. you know youve f**ked up when wally and fatty agree it was a terrible decision.

 

[Springs]

I don't think hannants run is the issue at all. Even if he bowled farah over it wouldn't have made a difference a farah was never going to get near hodges.

It hodges running behind hannant that creates the advantage

It creates an advantage and has always been a penalty. Players know this and it is the reason why they often just drop to the ground if they don't give it to a decoy runner and run behind them, because if they take the advantage it will be a penalty.