Boyd's 54th Minute Try

[no name]

It is different. Players and officials are on the field for different reasons.

What did the Titans do wrong in this instance?

 

[taxidriver]

ran into the ref

 

[taxidriver]

not awarding it opens a massive can of worms.

every time a bomb goes up, crash into the ref.

 

[Dragon_Taylor6]

Just because it was not fair to the Titans doesn't mean it should not be a try.

 

[no name]

The rules say otherwise.

 

[juanfarkall]

So youre saying Zillman couldn't see the ball before he got impeded? :crazy:.

No, What I am saying is that if he cannot see the referee backing away from the area where the ball is in play, what chance has he got of seeing something much smaller like a football.

As for leaving it for the fullback, in a position like that, leaving it for him is the right thing to do..

Scoreboard and commonsense would suggest otherwise.

Prince was getting in to a position to give Zillman cover. If Prince grabbed it, he probably would have been forced in goal. If Zillman wasn't impeded he would have had a better chance to get it out of the in goal area. .

So Prince was running a blocking play ?

Play the ball not the man.

Looks like a double f**k up by Prince.

But it all comes back to the Dragons gaining an unfair advantage from an irregular incident.

Why shouldn't the attacking side get the advantage of an error by the defending side ?

No try should have been given according to the rules.

According to your own bitter interpretation of the rules.

 

[taxidriver]

what rule is that?

 

[no name]

Double

 

[no name]

Not bitter at all, just stating the facts.
Zillman had a clear view of the ball and did the right thing in keeping his eyes on the ball, the ref then moved into his line.
In the end it does LOOK like Prince stuffed up but if Zillman wasn't impeded he was doing exactly what he was supposed to do. I'm sure you'll see many instances in the future of a player in the line leaving it for the fullback to attack the ball at a better angle and avoid a drop out.
The defense made no error, the referee did.

Nothing I say will change your mind and vice versa. And nothing will change the 4 points given, it will be interesting to hear Harrigans take, I'm sure he'll back his refs. But I wonder if it will prompt clearer rules for similar cases in the future.

 

[Slackboy72]

It will require a change in the wording of the rules.

 

[Spot On]

not awarding it opens a massive can of worms.

every time a bomb goes up, crash into the ref.

I see your point. I had the same thought. However, it has a flip side. See an opportunity to put a kick in toward the ref and have him shield the fullback.

Don't care about the rules it should have been a no try. That's common sense.

 

[seaeagle sam]

no try, scrum. The ref was in motion.

 

[kurt faulk]

.

the ref was moving out of prince's way so he could catch the ball. he was the closest player to it. prince chose to fall over. so in reality the ref didn't impede the titans, prince did.

it didn't stop him from blaming the ref for his poor play, the trackhead.

i wonder if he blames the refs for all his horrible short kicks inside the saint's 20.

.

 

[Perth Red]

anytime a ref interferes with play it should be a scrum attack. the ref was moving backwards as well so they actually ran into each other. It was the refs fault though as it was a bad place for him to be. Scrum attack should have been the call. Time to change the rulebook.

 

[Firey_Dragon]

Where should he have been?

Not running into the path of the ball would be a good start. It was the last play of the set, a fullback almost always defends centrally on that play, the ref should have moved towards the sidelines, not in-field. Even if Zillman wasn't taken out, his positioning could have meant he collided with the ball, or another player trying to play at the ball. It was very ordinary positioning given the type of kick.

 

[Gaba]

Was it last year or in 2009 when the ref got ko by thaidays or another bronco's player knee when he was chasing a player with the ball


where were the people then

the ref got in the way and the play should have been called back for a scrum, because the player with the ball had an advantage

 

[Firey_Dragon]

Was it last year or in 2009 when the ref got ko by thaidays or another bronco's player knee when he was chasing a player with the ball


where were the people then

the ref got in the way and the play should have been called back for a scrum, because the player with the ball had an advantage

It was Tony De La Haras getting knocked out by Tonie Carroll, but I dont see how that really has any relevance here the Souths player was tackled immediately after it happened.

 

[Gaba]

It was Tony De La Haras getting knocked out by Tonie Carroll, but I dont see how that really has any relevance here the Souths player was tackled immediately after it happened.

it shows it happens in games where players get into contact with refs

If people are claiming once a player runs into a ref a scrum should be called, then it shouldnt matter where the play is on the field.

Thats the point im making ,

 

[Gaba]

I see your point. I had the same thought. However, it has a flip side. See an opportunity to put a kick in toward the ref and have him shield the fullback.

Don't care about the rules it should have been a no try. That's common sense.

commonsense

it may not have been 100% that zillman would have caught the ball, prince was in his eyeline who to say he wouldnt have knocked on and boyd would have scored anyway

 

[Jason Maher]

The refs can't win either way. They allow the try, you can argue players will now look to use the ref as a shield in much the same way as the they have always done with the goal post. They disallow it, then you can argue players will start deliberately running into or tackling the ref if it looks like they might concede a try, much like when the obstruction rule was hcnaged and players deliberately tackled decoys to get an obstruction call.