Knights v Dragons Post Match Thread

[Willow]

You really have made the decision to argue for sake of it. The art of clutching at straws. :lol:

And he could tell this nearly immediately.................come on now ...........PLEASSSSSSSEEEEEEE

LOL. Fair dinkum... that's desperate. Where are you getting this from?

Please read carefully: Archer called the video ref in. He didn't make any decision immediately.

He spoke after the ruling was handed down by the video ref. He was obviously in communication with the video ref and was conveying the reasoning to Johns and Buderus afterwards.

I know the sight of your captain and best player arguing with the ref is powerful imagery for you, but think about it for a moment. They were being belted on the scoreboard and they were frustrated. The ref was pretty relaxed and it was not an instantaneous decision. He simply explained the video ref decision to the animated Johns and Buderus. Nothing more to it.

 

[borat]

I was at the game and initially I like everyone else thought it was a no try. But having watched the replay I have changed my mind to it being a try. I have also heard the talkin sport team say the same yesterday as well as the Fox NRL commentry team. IMO it was so close to call that beneift of the doubt goes to the attacking team anyway.

You would think it would make sense to judge on bodies for offside but I guess a foot is easier to judge where it is planted in relation to the line markings.

 

[Big Tim]

I dont know about you guys but in the pic (the one Willow suggested we look at) Hornby's front foot is on the ground, or as near to.

Now follow this....

When a person competes in race walking they are penalised if both feet are off the ground ie. they are running.

When you run, both feet are off the ground at the change of momentum. If Hornby's front foot is coming to the ground his back foot must be in the air. It is that simple... so technically a player could be offside even though they are in line with the kick, if at the precise moment the ball hits the foot they are mid stride and off the ground.... but if this were the case you would go on where the players body is in relation to the ball:-k

In any case the writing was on the wall, we were not going to win.

My big issue is that it is 6 points against that shouldnt be. 6 points against could cost us a top 2 finish with such a tight competition.

 

[Medievalknight]

I dont know about you guys but in the pic (the one Willow suggested we look at) Hornby's front foot is on the ground, or as near to.

Now follow this....

When a person competes in race walking they are penalised if both feet are off the ground ie. they are running.

When you run, both feet are off the ground at the change of momentum. If Hornby's front foot is coming to the ground his back foot must be in the air. It is that simple... so technically a player could be offside even though they are in line with the kick, if at the precise moment the ball hits the foot they are mid stride and off the ground.... but if this were the case you would go on where the players body is in relation to the ball:-k

In any case the writing was on the wall, we were not going to win.

My big issue is that it is 6 points against that shouldnt be. 6 points against could cost us a top 2 finish with such a tight competition.

Awaits Willows reply to the above..

*EDIT*
sorry big tim 2........bet you too will have blinkers ;-)

 

[antonius]

Well this thread has been effectively taken over by an argument over one try that made absolutely no difference to the result other than for and against. By the rules as they stand it was a try, however if that ruling is correct then the rule needs changing, when a ball can hit the try scorer on the arse from the last play and the resulting play is a try somethings very wrong with that rule. We lost to a much better team on the day, being a Knights supporter I'm much more worried about what supercoach will dish up next week.

 

[Medievalknight]

Well this thread has been effectively taken over by an argument over one try that made absolutely no difference to the result other than for and against. By the rules as they stand it was a try, however if that ruling is correct then the rule needs changing, when a ball can hit the try scorer on the arse from the last play and the resulting play is a try somethings very wrong with that rule. We lost to a much better team on the day, being a Knights supporter I'm much more worried about what supercoach will dish up next week.

Dont worry...supercoach wont let us down :lol: :lol:

 

[Willow]

So it's come down to a call for a rule change? Guys, these are the rules of the game... you can't change them just because things didn't go your way.

I dont know about you guys but in the pic (the one Willow suggested we look at) Hornby's front foot is on the ground, or as near to.

Actually, my suggestion is to look at the actual moving video. It has been splashed all over NRL Fox now so most don't even have watch the tape. Most people keen for the facts have seen it.

Anyone who has taken notice of the moving pictures will see that it supports the video ref decision that the front foot was off the ground.

That is, definitely off the ground.
That is, not on the ground.... higher than the turf. Airbourne, lifted, aloft, up, above, higher, raised, atop... the front foot was OFF THE GROUND. Hope that clears things up.

If Hornby's front foot was on the ground, you'd have case. But it was off the ground.
There's only so many ways it can be said.

Now follow this....

When a person competes in race walking they are penalised if both feet are off the ground ie. they are running.

When you run, both feet are off the ground at the change of momentum. If Hornby's front foot is coming to the ground his back foot must be in the air.

Please, do yourself a favour and watch the video (if you have it). This is not a walking race, and the FACT is Hornby's front foot was in the air when Barrett kicked the ball - Hornby was in the motion of stepping forward. He was not offside at the time of the kick. I say FACT, because it is a FACT.
I've watched it 6 or 7 times now.

Oh, did I mention that Hornby's front foot was definitely off the ground at the time of Barrett's kick?

It is that simple... so technically a player could be offside even though they are in line with the kick, if at the precise moment the ball hits the foot they are mid stride and off the ground.... but if this were the case you would go on where the players body is in relation to the ball:-k

Nothing technical about it, Hornby's foot was in the air. Sorry, but those are the rules. Offside relates to what happen on the field, not what happens in the air.

The same is true when a player goes into touch, he is only deemed to be out of bounds when a foot, or any part of his body, hits the actual ground. How often do you see a player score in the corner and the video ref is looking to see if the player went into touch? For example, when Corey Payne scored in the corner last Friday, the video ref didnt care about his foot being over the touch line. Why? Because his foot was still in the air.

In any case the writing was on the wall, we were not going to win.

My big issue is that it is 6 points against that shouldnt be. 6 points against could cost us a top 2 finish with such a tight competition.

Hmm.. more words from the mouths of commentators.

If that's your big issue, then I can put your mind as ease. The 6 points were awarded because it was deemed a fair try.

However, the last try the Knights scored has a question mark over it as they gained possession in a dodgy manner.

Also, the try Carney scored the week before (the mile high forward pass from Kurt Gidley) was far more cut and dried than anything we saw last Friday night.

So over the last two games at least, it looks like the Knights are several yards in front when it comes to ref calls.

 

[aqua_duck]

Am I the only one who doesn't think Tanner does enough week in week out to cement a spot in the starting side?
He wouldn't start for any other side in the NRL

 

[Baron Vo Mandor]

Tanner, I am baffled how he makes the starting side every week.

Horrible game you can tell the teams overtired and just needs a rest, sure we have players out but theres no other reason that we got flogged besides our team is just having trouble lifiting at the moment.

Give the boys a week off away from footy and eachother and they'll come back keener and hungrier then ever hopefully.

PS - Kidley almost ruined my b'day with some of his poor efforts, Hagan ought to be shot for putting him in there when we had a perfectly good fullback rearing to go in PL.

 

[antonius]

So it's come down to a call for a rule change? Guys, these are the rules of the game... you can't change them just because things didn't go your way.

LOL, That's not the reason I mentioned it. I agree according to the rules it was a try, obviously the rule is very confusing when to the everyday guy watching the game (and some informed commentators) it just didn't look right that a bloke that is hit on the back with the ball can pick it up and score because his toenail was in line with the kicker, and one of his feet was in the air. They'll be getting laser levels out next to check that was actually the case. Like I said we lost to a far better outfit on the day. Nothing wrong with Carneys try last week I had the laser beam on that pass as well!;-)

 

[Willow]

LOL. The laser beam technology is coming... sooner than you think.

antonius, there's other folk making mention of the how unfair the rule before your post. It seems to me that the matter was made all the more complicated because of the ill-informed commentary. The fact is, once we got a good view of the slow motion replay and the subsequent analysis, it wasn't really that complicated at all. Why Ray Warren kept harping on about is open to speculation, but even he was starting to cover his tracks. Quite frankly I think the commentators knew afterwards that they put foot in it, and have been made to look very silly.

Its unfortunate because it spreads the ignorance around - it happens a lot with commentators. Sometimes I wonder if that are watching the same game.

Here's a recent report from Fox with quotes from the referee boss Robert Finch. Looks like he's not too pleased with the Channel 9 commentators either...


After examining several replays Ward eventually awarded the try, ruling while most of Hornby's body was ahead of Barrett his planted back foot was behind the kicker.

While not affecting the outcome of the game, the decision stirred plenty of criticism, with several commentators adamant common sense should have prevailed and no try awarded.

Finch, though, said Ward had no choice but to award the try.

"The bottom line is, the rule states that if a player has a foot behind the ball, he's onside, and he clearly did. They are the rules of the game," Finch said.

"They say about common sense... that's rubbish. If down the track we disallow a try because of common sense, I'm sure the referee or video ref will cop all and sundry because of it.

"You've got to stick to the rules of the game. Which (Ward) did, he was correct, and he still gets criticised.
"It's fine when officials are being abused when they're wrong, but when they're endorsing the rules of the game I get a bit cranky.

"Officials get a tough time as it is, but to get a tough time when he's right, and commentators who don't know the rules are wrong, that's disappointing."
...
"It's a rule. It's not an interpretation of the rule. It's in the rule book. And we've been using it all year," Finch said.
http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,19283799-23209,00.html?from=rss

 

[Jobdog]

Don't care what you say Willow, Hornby's front foot was on the ground. That's my opinion, I'm not going to change that opinion.

 

[Willow]

Lmao!!

 

[RABK]

Willow, what about Barrett ay?

What a dog.

 

[borat]

I must say I did find it hilarious when Gould said on the Sunday Roast that the game should be ruled by common sense. Does anybody here want the game to be judged by Phil Gould's perspective of common sense? That was a ridiculous comment.

I was at the game and I thought it was a no try, everyone including the players thought it was a no try. But every game needs rules and I can't figure out a better clear cut way to determine onside other than by feet on the ground. If you go by body position its far to open for debate, its much easier to see a foot placed on the ground especially in relation to the line markings.

Lots of people whinging about this one especially the TV commentators without coming up with any solution.

 

[Medievalknight]

Nothing wrong with Carneys try last week I had the laser beam on that pass as well!;-)

I was more technological Tony............I had the slide rule out and trained crickets in grass with mini cameras

 

[Willow]

Willow, what about Barrett ay?

What a dog.

Is he a cat or a dog? The keyboard heroes can never make up their minds.

I haven't seen all the angles but expect he'll take the early guilty penalty. If not, its a call for the judiciary. I'll have no difficulty in accepting the decision.

Was it worse than this: http://www.showroom.com.au/dragons/2004/videos/2004_24_vid_Sims.mpg

ay?

 

[RABK]

Is he a cat or a dog? The keyboard heroes can never make up their minds.

I haven't seen all the angles but expect he'll take the early guilty penalty. If not, its a call for the judiciary. I'll have no difficulty in accepting the decision.

Was it worse than this: http://www.showroom.com.au/dragons/2004/videos/2004_24_vid_Sims.mpg

ay?

I just knew you'd have to have a go. Couldn't help yourself. :lol:

 

[Willow]

lol. Always happy to answer your queries RABK.
Is Newton a dog as well?

 

[RABK]

lol. Always happy to answer your queries RABK.
Is Newton a dog as well?

Have you read elsewhere where i said that i don't think it's as bad as some are making it out to be and that like Clint's it was a brain explosion not a premeditated attack?

Nope, Newton ain't a dog but neither is Barrett. But after the PJ Marsh incident last year - yes, Barrett is a cat.