Not a single banana bender has responded to this post. It's called cognitive dissonance, the inability to hold 2 conficting ideas. The first is that the opposition MUST be wrong and the second being that one of their own (one they call the King no less) cannot be wrong.
well bill has just revolutionised the game and set a pretty dangerous standard.
if i was an nrl coach i would be running this play every set every week as now its a free for all. as long as the decoy runner doesnt impede the defenders then running around behind them is now officially ok.
going to make it interesting.
i personally dont believe its a try. clearly bill didnt tell the players in 2011 "ok guys you can now run behind your decoys as long as they dont impede the defensive line" or you wouldnt see players surrender every time they accidently do it pretty much every round in the NRL.
but if this is the new interpretation so be it.. let the games begin
Geez Pete. Clutching at straws again? Ignore the bit about the statue, it was clearly a joke. How about addressing the fact that even the great Wally Lewis said he would have been furious if the same try had been awarded against QLD. As I said, cognitive dissonance.
It's actually spurious logic. Are we to believe that if one famous QLDr thinks it wasn't a try, all QLDrs must? Simple reasoning for the simple minded I guess.....
No, you don't necessarily have to agree with anyone. However, cognitive dissonance relates to the fact that noone even wanted to acknowledge the fact and instead wanted to claim that it was only NSW fans that believed it was not a try when that clearly was not the case. By acknowledging that Lewis believed it should have been a no try their argument that it was just NSW having a whinge goes out the window.
Where has anyone claimed it's only NSW fans that believe it was not a try? There are in fact several NSW fans who think it was a try - some even in this thread.
Just because someone who is a Queenslander thinks it wasn't a try doesn't make them right.
You mean generalised & assumed.
My point was pretty clear but once again you missed it. Wally is highly regarded as a player but not as a commentator. I don't know anybody on here who rates him on the latter. He plays the diplomat & he often sides with the rest of the commentators. It didn't surprise me at all to see him side with the rest of the commentary team who happen to be Blue.
He's entitled to say what he wants but it's largely irrelevant to this topic. It holds as much weight as any other opinion on here.
How is it relevent that some NSW fans believe it was a try? I think you'll find that is simply a sympton of NSW being generally more subjective. If a decision goes against QLD you will find that to a man, Queenslanders believe the call is wrong but when a call goes against NSW you will find plenty who have no problem with the call (there were even plenty of NSW fans saying the Inglis try in game 1 was fair enough).
From the 2011 NRL Rule book:
Obstruction:
a) It is the responsibility of the decoy runner/s not to interfere with the defending team.
b) The ball runner cannot run behind his own team and gain an advantage.
c) A sweep player may receive the ball on the inside of a block runner as long as there is depth on the pass to him. It there is no depth he needs to receive the ball on the outside of the block runner.
d) Defensive decisions that commit defenders to decoy runners will not be considered obstruction.
e) Attacking players who loiter next to the play the ball can be interpreted as obstructing the defending team.
f) In the process of scoring a try an attacking player dives through or into the legs of the player who has played the ball a penalty will be awarded to the defending team. This action will be interpreted as obstruction.
g) If in the opinion of the referee/video referee the play had no effect on the scoring of the try the try will be awarded.
The two passages in bold are key to this decision. Farah was not impeded by Hannant, and then consequently never made an effort to get to Hodges. Instead he threw his arms in the air and appealed for the penalty. Scott stepped towards Hannant and then committed to Hodges, but held off him and watched Hodges step around him. Carney was simply fended away by Hodges.
Farah gave up the chase on Hodges, and was never going to get to him anyway. Scott and Carney both had opportunities to tackle Hodges, but Scott held off him, and Carney was swatted away. Hodges going behind the path of the decoy runner had no impact on the try, as the same defenders he would have been going up against had there been no decoy runner were still there and able to tackle him. And they both let him through.
Try.
Doga - Where did I ever say otherwise?
It didn't surprise me at all to see him side with the rest of the commentary team who happen to be Blue.
You have always been able to run behind a teammate.
You said that posters in here are claiming that only NSW fans believe it wasn't a try due to their "cognitive dissonance" when clearly that isn't true.
Now you're just making generalisations after your attempt to introduce fancy words to the discussion backfired.