Peachy try proven to be the correct decision

[OldPanther]

Do you truly believe that if Peachy had dropped the ball in exactly the same fashion 50m upfield the refs would have simply called play on ?

After what we have seen this year called as knock ons ?

f**k a player taking a bomb the ball goes straight through without touching his hands/arms is an automatic knock on.

Shit like this just highlights everything that's wrong with refs/bunker. Just call the f**king knock on and move along.

We have the bunker because people complain to no end about getting calls wrong. The ref clearly thought he didn't touch it and would have called try without the bunker being there. Only difference with the bunker is the ref chacks to make sure of his decision so the defence isn't ripped off. Turns out he got the call right looking at the video.

 

[Danny-Boy]

Drop the ball? Huh?

He didn't have possession, it was deflected into him unaware off his chest, he then kneed it without missing his hand.

Play on every day of the week for mine. If it gets called up mid-field so be it but with the benefit of video analysis in this instance, it's a try.

Unaware? He was playing at the ball the entire time. So if it was passed to him you'd think it's play on?

 

[Someguy]

You think when a ball is kicked into your chest and not played at it should be a knock on? I can see NRL coaches having fun with that.

wasnt the old rule for a ball going into touch out of the last player it touched, played at or not.

I do agree that if played at chest should be a knock on, shouldn't be rewarded for not being good enough to touch it with your hands. Also expand the played at rule to include players a ball is passed at by there own team eg decoy runners and players not paying attention. You can ground a ball with the torso so why not be able to knock it on

 

[OldPanther]

Unaware? He was playing at the ball the entire time. So if it was passed to him you'd think it's play on?

It wasn't passed to him. He was chasing the kick when the Manly player deflected it.

 

[Danny-Boy]

It wasn't passed to him. He was chasing the kick when the Manly player deflected it.

My post went straight over your head. IF....the keyword is IF.

 

[Danny-Boy]

You think when a ball is kicked into your chest and not played at it should be a knock on? I can see NRL coaches having fun with that.
.

.....except he played at it.

 

[OldPanther]

My post went straight over your head. IF....the keyword is IF.

No it didn't the if is irrelevant. If it was a pass it would have come at peachy from a completely different angle and he would have had his hands in front of his chest ready to catch it. Completely different set of circumstances.

 

[TheFrog]

.....except he played at it.

With his chest? A pointless argument anyway but I don't know how you can come to this conclusion.

 

[Danny-Boy]

No it didn't the if is irrelevant. If it was a pass it would have come at peachy from a completely different angle and he would have had his hands in front of his chest ready to catch it. Completely different set of circumstances.

sigh.....I'll dumb it down for you. cut out pass, the 'finger of tyrone' is the decoy, it hits his chest unaware and makes a play for the ball. You still have play on there?

 

[OldPanther]

sigh.....I'll dumb it down for you. cut out pass, the 'finger of tyrone' is the decoy, it hits his chest unaware and makes a play for the ball. You still have play on there?

If he is a decoy accidentally hitting a ball forward than yes play on. We've seen it Come off Morris's head for a try. Same ruling.

 

[Danny-Boy]

If he is a decoy accidentally hitting a ball forward than yes play on. We've seen it Come off Morris's head for a try. Same ruling.

No, Morris didn't play at the ball.

 

[OldPanther]

No, Morris didn't play at the ball.

Neither did Peachy. He had a ball kicked into him and he reacted accordingly. The closest rule you can connect it to would be a charge down not a knock on anyway. You've had to create an entire different scenario in your mind to justify Manly being robbed.

 

[Timmah]

Unaware? He was playing at the ball the entire time.

He wasn't playing at the ball, he was chasing through a grubber destined for the in-goal. He hadn't anticipated the deflection, that is obvious to everyone who's not a dyed-in-the-wool Manly fan unable to accept defeat.

So if it was passed to him you'd think it's play on?

Good straw-man argument but it wasn't passed to him. Irrelevant and pointless question.

 

[Danny-Boy]

He wasn't playing at the ball, he was chasing through a grubber destined for the in-goal. He hadn't anticipated the deflection, that is obvious to everyone who's not a dyed-in-the-wool Manly fan unable to accept defeat.

Good straw-man argument but it wasn't passed to him. Irrelevant and pointless question.

Not playing at the ball? I guess he stuck his hands out trying to catch the ball for the f**k of it.

 

[Danny-Boy]

Neither did Peachy. He had a ball kicked into him and he reacted accordingly. The closest rule you can connect it to would be a charge down not a knock on anyway. You've had to create an entire different scenario in your mind to justify Manly being robbed.

This ain't anywhere near a charge down.

 

[betcats]

This ain't anywhere near a charge down.

Peacheys hand never touched the ball. Manly never led the game in the second half. Penrith scored again anyway. You lost, stop being a sook and accept it.

 

[OldPanther]

This ain't anywhere near a charge down.

It's nowhere near a knock on either. We've had people blame the bunker when they followed the correct process and turned out to be right, blame the ref even though he followed the correct process and turned out to be right and people who think the rules should have been applied differently.

Maybe it's time to look at Manly’s complacency after the week before, their dropped balls in their own 20m and their bombed try opportunities(at least 2) as to why they lost.

 

[Timmah]

Not playing at the ball? I guess he stuck his hands out trying to catch the ball for the f**k of it.

At the point the ball hit his chest, no, he wasn't playing at it. Then when it bounced down, missing his hands and striking his knee, yes he was playing at it. Therefore it's play on and correctly a try.

Which is what it was ruled. You can argue about it until 2018 kickoff and beyond if you like but it won't change anything.

 

[mxlegend99]

At the point the ball hit his chest, no, he wasn't playing at it. Then when it bounced down, missing his hands and striking his knee, yes he was playing at it. Therefore it's play on and correctly a try.

Which is what it was ruled. You can argue about it until 2018 kickoff and beyond if you like but it won't change anything.

Exactly.

I think he needs to watch it again while sober. Both in regular speed and slow motion.

The speed at which it all happened, Cartwright kicked the ball, DCE put his foot out, it deflected straight into Peacheys chest and then clipped his knee after rebounding off his chest. Which was when he hands started to move toward the ball. It happened so quickly that he hadn't reacted until it was too late for him to get a touch to it anyway.

The front on camera angle synced with a side view shows the ball is nowhere near his hand. Watching it regular speed it's easy to see Peachey had no time to react aswell. It was a terrific call by the referee in the end.

Sure it was lucky. But that's a fair try still.

 

[WaznTheGreat]

I disagree with every post in this thread