Question for Queensland fans!

[Gippsy]

IMO, there is no way Farah played at the ball.

He was going in to make the tackle on Inglis, except Inglis went low/started to dive for the line. Farah was beaten but instinctively tried to put whatever he could in front of Inglis. It was a last grasp attempt to stop Inglis. The ball was dislodged during Farahs attempt to stop Inglis. NO TRY.

 

[Zoidberg]

I kinda wish it was called a no try.
Then people may actually talk about how good the game was.

I hope NSW fans realize that if it was "No Try" NSW weren't ABSOLUTELY going to win, QLD were still ahead by 2 points with only 7 minutes to go.

 

[Slammin]

IMO, there is no way Farah played at the ball.

He was going in to make the tackle on Inglis, except Inglis went low/started to dive for the line. Farah was beaten but instinctively tried to put whatever he could in front of Inglis. It was a last grasp attempt to stop Inglis. The ball was dislodged during Farahs attempt to stop Inglis. NO TRY.

So your logic is:

1. Farah did not play at the ball
2. Farah reacted instinctively with his foot to stop the try
3. Therefore Farah did not play at the ball

Hurrrr durrrr

 

[the kirwan kid]

The question that I'd like you guys to answer though, which has baffled me since last night, is do you think or believe that Robbie Farah actually played at the ball? I'm not saying whether or not GI should have been awarded a try or anything like that at all, just quite simply, do you think he played at the ball?

Again, congrats on Game I victory, you guys were the better team!

Initially i thought he'd dropped it cold then the replays showed Farrah's foot hitting it. Whether he did it intentionally (not sure either way cos I couldn't see where his eyes were looking) but I was happy with the ruling. It was 50-50 with the befit going the attacking team's way.

I felt the same about the Uate try ... I was thinking he knocked it into Boyd but i was happy with the call going the attacking team.

 

[Hutty1986]

Initially i thought he'd dropped it cold then the replays showed Farrah's foot hitting it. Whether he did it intentionally (not sure either way cos I couldn't see where his eyes were looking) but I was happy with the ruling. It was 50-50 with the befit going the attacking team's way.

I felt the same about the Uate try ... I was thinking he knocked it into Boyd but i was happy with the call going the attacking team.

:lol: Oh my god

 

[Gippsy]

So your logic is:

1. Farah did not play at the ball
2. Farah reacted instinctively with his foot to stop the try
3. Therefore Farah did not play at the ball

Hurrrr durrrr

Hurr durr, except that's not what I said. I said he instinctively tried to put whatever he could in front of Inglis. I just don't believe he made a deliberate kick at the ball.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

Hurr durr, except that's not what I said. I said he instinctively tried to put whatever he could in front of Inglis. I just don't believe he made a deliberate kick at the ball.

So it was an attempted trip?

 

[Slammin]

So it was an attempted trip?

:lol:

So QLD should really be the ones bitching and moaning. We tend not to do that though, we just win games.

Trying to trip a player scoring a try would have to be a send off offense.

 

[Mader45]

I cannot disagree with most views on here any more then i can.

A) Farah was going for the ball initially. Not Inglis. Watch his momentum. He dove where the ball was. Inglis was just way to fast.

B) Inglis grabbed the ball and moved forward to the line. Thus why Farah dove straight past him.

C) farah realized in mid air and turned, reaching out, making a weak grab at Inglis while in mid air

D) Farah turning, to make the weak tackle, resulted in his spasticated leg movements. This turn accidentally resulted in his feet being under the ball.

E) If Farah was slow enough to dive for a ball late, realized it wasnt there far to late, but could turn and position his feet precisely where they needed to be at the same time then Inglis, with far quicker reactionary skills, had the time to avoid his feet and plant the ball. In other words, Inglis speed made Farah look silly but also resulted in Farah being in the way of the ball rather then smashing into Inglis.

It was accidental.... But accidental dislodgement would still be a try anyway, wouldnt it?

 

[Broncomum]

Hurr durr, except that's not what I said. I said he instinctively tried to put whatever he could in front of Inglis. I just don't believe he made a deliberate kick at the ball.

So he deliberately played at the ball and contacted it. Instinct or even learned behaviour doesn't come into it, he made a decision to make a movement toward the ball in an effort to change its position and he was successful.

Movement of the foot = kick
Deliberate kick.

 

[Springs]

It wasn't a kick, I think he was trying to put his foot under the ball. That's one of the stupid parts of this decision, they just assume what Farah's thinking.

If Farah kicked at it it's illegal, so penalty try.
If he just tried to stop him from grounding it then that's legal, which means Inglis just lost control of the ball when it came in contact with Farah's foot. Knock on.
It's one of these two depending on whether they deem the strike to be legal or not.

It's quite clear really. Inglis lost control of the ball when Farah but his foot out to stop hit, it then slid out of this hands, up his arms then forwards on to the ground. Knock in in everyone's language, in every game, on every field. Except for the Etihad ingoals during Origin I of course.

 

[Slammin]

D) Farah turning, to make the weak tackle, resulted in his spasticated leg movements. This turn accidentally resulted in his feet being under the ball.

:alcho:

You been drinking?

The only thing that is "spasticated" is your brain.

 

[Broncomum]

It wasn't a kick, I think he was trying to put his foot under the ball. That's one of the stupid parts of this decision, they just assume what Farah's thinking.

If Farah kicked at it it's illegal, so penalty try.
If he just tried to stop him from grounding it then that's legal, which means Inglis just lost control of the ball when it came in contact with Farah's foot. Knock on.
It's one of these two depending on whether they deem the strike to be legal or not.

It's quite clear really. Inglis lost control of the ball when Farah but his foot out to stop hit, it then slid out of this hands, up his arms then forwards on to the ground. Knock in in everyone's language, in every game, on every field. Except for the Etihad ingoals during Origin I of course.

#1. But isn't your argument also based on an assumption of what he was doing? You are assuming he was just trying to put his foot under the ball. How do you know that?

#2. Refs are people who are actually employed & trained to do that very thing, adjudicate on the intent of a player. Otherwise they'd be stopping play asking " Hey Paul, did you intend on putting your foot on the line?"

#3. A player is well within his rights to play at a ball in an attempt to dislodge it & that is what he did. The ball is then up for grabs by ANYONE. It got grabbed.

 

[Big Pete]

You're allowed to dislodge the ball with your foot.

Just not allowed to strike the player or slide in dangerously.

However, you do so at your own risk because the opposition are given leniency when regathering the ball in what's called a rebound.

I'm probably repeating myself but I believe it's a silly rule and that entire sequence needs to be re-examined. What occurred shouldn't be a try. However, it should be a penalty try because I don't believe you should be allowed to lead with your foot to prevent a try. It eliminates a grey area and doesn't create anymore. Somebody will argue intention, but that's already there & you can clearly see Farah extends his foot to prevent the try.

 

[Leagueaddict]

Alfie retired?
Pfftt ... he's been there all the time.

Yeah I was at the game and Alfie was on the field for most of the match and had the Blues fans spewing chips . Me and my brother were yelling out "Pass it to Alfie" to the disgust of a couple of cockroaches near us. :lol:

 

[Broncomum]

Yeah I was at the game and Alfie was on the field for most of the match and had the Blues fans spewing chips . Me and my brother were yelling out "Pass it to Alfie" to the disgust of a couple of cockroaches near us. :lol:

The funniest things I have seen at Origin level, when a fight breaks out is either Alfie, or the other night Gilly & the looks on their faces as they stand to the side of the brawl.

Are they thinking " shit guys, get me outta here!" or " " geez you guys have all the fun"!

 

[Leagueaddict]

The funniest things I have seen at Origin level, when a fight breaks out is either Alfie, or the other night Gilly & the looks on their faces as they stand to the side of the brawl.

Are they thinking " shit guys, get me outta here!" or " " geez you guys have all the fun"!

Yeah think it's the latter somehow...

 

[Springs]

You're allowed to dislodge the ball with your foot.

Just not allowed to strike the player or slide in dangerously.

However, you do so at your own risk because the opposition are given leniency when regathering the ball in what's called a rebound.

I'm probably repeating myself but I believe it's a silly rule and that entire sequence needs to be re-examined. What occurred shouldn't be a try. However, it should be a penalty try because I don't believe you should be allowed to lead with your foot to prevent a try. It eliminates a grey area and doesn't create anymore. Somebody will argue intention, but that's already there & you can clearly see Farah extends his foot to prevent the try.

That's a fine argument. If Farah was ruled to have struck at it illegally then it should be a penalty try.

However, ruling that it was 'dislodged' means it was just poor ball security. The same way as when a player makes a tackle and his arm hits the ball, forcing it loose. It's not a clean rake or steal. It's just poor ball control. So if they are going with the 'dislodged' thing then it's a knock on. Farah's foot was in the way and Inglis fumbled it. No try.

 

[Big Pete]

Difference is the referee's don't believe the players were intentionally trying to dislodge the ball when they were making a tackle. Where as Farah intentionally stuck his foot out to impede the try.

 

[Gippsy]

The still shots show Farah not even looking at Inglis or the ball, so I don't know how anyone can say it was intentional. His leg was in the way, Inglis had a poor carry and lost control. It's a knock on every day of the week.

We've seen it with this, and other bad decisions, how the slow motion replays get over analyzed.