Hayne for president

[Twizzle]

Ok - checked the rule book:


Direction of Pass

​

​

1. The direction of a pass is relative to the player making it and not to the actual path relative to the ground. A player running towards his opponents’ goal line may throw the ball towards a colleague who is behind him but because of the thrower’s own momentum the ball travels forward relative to the ground. This is not a forward pass as the thrower has not passed the ball forward in relation to himself. This is particularly noticeable when a running player makes a high, lobbed pass.​

Looks like I'm wrong! Must be "thrown backwards" but players momentum can carry it forward.
The bit at the end there seems to sum up the Hayne to Creagh pass pretty well... he floated it back in-field, Hayne ends up almost dead in-goal and Creagh gets the ball and scores.​

So it was a completely fair try.​

I thought he threw it forward out of his hands, then it rolled further forward

 

[spiderdan]

Clearly, thats right, if you look at the replay and watched his hands, the ball was definately thrown backwards

i disagree. while hayne's arms and hands moved the same way as passing a ball backward the ball left his hands in a forward trajectory.

if you want to analyse the techical aspects of the pass - look at the arc motion of hayne's arms. if you draw a tangent at the point of release, the ball's trajectory is clearly forward. what his arms and hands are doing should be irrelevant.

this is the point i was making in the other post. the analysis of what is forward and what isn't is too technical (especialy for some of the deadsh*ts we have for refs). make it black and white as strider said.

how hard is it to throw an on-side pass?

 

[Twizzle]

you've better eyes than Harrigan then who had to watch it 8 o 9 times

see thats what I dont get

why did he have to watch it 8 or 9 times when it was obvious after 1 that his foot touched the line

 

[junior009]

see thats what I dont get

why did he have to watch it 8 or 9 times when it was obvious after 1 that his foot touched the line

Because one angle it looked like his foot probably touched the line, another angle it looked like there was green grass between his foot and the line and the third angle you couldn't see his foot at all.

If ever there was a case of BOD that was it. Dud call.

 

[spiderdan]

Because one angle it looked like his foot probably touched the line, another angle it looked like there was green grass between his foot and the line and the third angle you couldn't see his foot at all.

If ever there was a case of BOD that was it. Dud call.

personally i thought that call was right but i can't understand how it even went upstairs. the replay shows that the touchie got the best view of everyone. it should've gone with the touchie's call.

 

[SDM]

The touchie thought it was in, and he was closer then the camera. If Hayne passed it to Jennings and he gets tackled, its play the ball, not scrum.

 

[oldmancraigy]

I am 100% certain that if Brett Stewart was fit, he would be playing fullback, why? Because Brett Stewart is the better fullback, so yes if Hayne is shown to be the better fullback, he will no doubt be the fullback. Where would Gidley play had Brett Stewart been playing?

Fullback.

Selectors love Kidley. End of story

They started him in Origin 3 at fullback last season even though Stewart looked great in games 1 and 2.

Gidley hasn't yet shown an ability to rise to Origin level, but because he's "mr do-all" at club level, the selectors throw him in for the fullback spot.

Bad call imo - worse call making him captain!

 

[strider]

Because one angle it looked like his foot probably touched the line, another angle it looked like there was green grass between his foot and the line and the third angle you couldn't see his foot at all.

If ever there was a case of BOD that was it. Dud call.

word!

 

[oldmancraigy]

personally i thought that call was right but i can't understand how it even went upstairs. the replay shows that the touchie got the best view of everyone. it should've gone with the touchie's call.

It was funny seeing Hayne turn to the touchie after the "no-try" ruling came up on screen and say "you were right there!"

If Folau or Inglis scored a try like that, we'd all be up in arms.

Highly contentious decision either way, but I don't think it's a "benefit of the doubt" because not enough doubt existed - it really looked like his heel hit the line on the 3rd or 4th stride (not the one they keep showing on the news clips - the one Harrigan looked at so many times).

 

[Snoochies]

This photo is being used in the Courier Mail

 

[strider]

the angle from the sideline (close behind) was the best of all and it looked like he didn't go out .... end of story

 

[strider]

This photo is being used in the Courier Mail

dirty queenslanders probably photoshopped it :lol:

no honestly - it does look on the line, but the other angle tells such a different story!

 

[Fathead]

If you blokes were so certain that he touched the line, then you have better eyes than me. Ive looked at the 6 or 7 replays about 6 or 7 times and I cant see anything that tells me that he definately touched the line.

And the operative word there is 'definately'. If one replay shows that there is grass between his boot and the line, the touch judge, who was right there called it ok and we had to watch it 7 times.. no 'definately' there.

But whats the use ? Lord Bill is beyond reproach anyway. Just like his refusal to rule that penalty try for parra a couple of years ago.. Its a joke.

BTW if the Queenslanders were robbed of a try like that at Suncorp, then the Super League war would re erupt.

 

[Fathead]

This photo is being used in the Courier Mail

Actually considering the angle of the shot and the fact that his heel is probably in the air in this shot... he wasnt out.

 

[Suitman]

If you blokes were so certain that he touched the line, then you have better eyes than me. Ive looked at the 6 or 7 replays about 6 or 7 times and I cant see anything that tells me that he definately touched the line.

And the operative word there is 'definately'. If one replay shows that there is grass between his boot and the line, the touch judge, who was right there called it ok and we had to watch it 7 times.. no 'definately' there.

But whats the use ? Lord Bill is beyond reproach anyway. Just like his refusal to rule that penalty try for parra a couple of years ago.. Its a joke.

BTW if the Queenslanders were robbed of a try like that at Suncorp, then the Super League war would re erupt.

If that was at Suncorp and it was Queensland, Bill would have given it.

Suity

 

[Suitman]

Actually considering the angle of the shot and the fact that his heel is probably in the air in this shot... he wasnt out.

And that is the definitive argument here. At no stage, did any replay PROVE WITHOUT DOUBT, that his heel touched the line.
Therefore......BOD.

Suity

 

[Fathead]

And that is the definitive argument here. At no stage, did any replay PROVE WITHOUT DOUBT, that his heel touched the line.
Therefore......BOD.

Suity

Didnt you know - The NRL operates on 'Harrigans Rules' ?

Ive never known anyone in the NRL oppose Harrigan and probably never will.

 

[Belly in Brisvegas]

If that was at Suncorp and it was Queensland, Bill would have given it.

Suity

That's bullsh*t Suity

 

[Belly in Brisvegas]

And that is the definitive argument here. At no stage, did any replay PROVE WITHOUT DOUBT, that his heel touched the line.
Therefore......BOD.

Suity

That I don't disagree with.

 

[Fathead]

Anyway you think thats bad.. try explaining the 'benefit of the doubt' rule to a bunch of Victorians who are watching NRL.

"Well if there is a benefit of the doubt in a decision regarding a try, that benefit of the doubt goes to the attacking team... ahhh except in this case...or whenever Bill Harrigan deems it doesnt apply .. or does apply.. whatever the case may be"