Question for Queensland fans!

[Bulldog Force]

Ok firstly, let's just make sure that there's no bitterness here between NSW and QLD fans. Congratulations Queensland, you won and lead the series 1-0 going into Suncorp for game II and odds are you'll take a 2-0 lead. You won last night, you were the better team and the better team won. The players gave it their all, always difused the bombs well, and had good chemistry between themselves.

Us NSW fans are not angry at you... rather we are not happy with the referee's call on the GI try.

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?

From my perspective, it didn't look like it. All I saw was Robbie running towards where the action was and his foot just happened to be where GI was, I didn't see him move it to interfere in the play or anything. It certainly wasn't of the calibur that Billy Slater and Jarryd Hayne got put on notice for (sliding in feet first).

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

 

[Dragon2010]

Game II is in Sydney...

 

[Led_Halen]

Whether or not he played the ball, it's being discussed in the other 50 threads.
/thread.

 

[gUt]

I believe he played at it, tried to upset the put-down with his boot and succeeded. I don't agree with those who claim this warrants a penalty because it was in no way dangerous. I think the problem is what happened after; did GI knock it on after Farah dislodged it?

 

[Frank_Grimes]

I said in the other thread, I'd be dirty if it was a NSW try, and it's fortunate that it didn't decide the outcome.

 

[Canard]

I love some NSW fans arguement, "there is no way Farah played at it in that split second!!"

"But Inglis definitely did in that split second!"

 

[JamesBrandy]

I thought we were lucky to be awarded the try and wouldn't have been happy if NSW had scored a try in that fashion. I didn't think Farah played at the ball, but I also don't think Inglis knocked on afterwards.

I don't think that it decided the game. I think the main turning points in the game was when Jennings was binned, NSW decided to have a shot at goal from a penalty at 40m out, and Carney not finding touch from another penalty.

 

[Bulldog Force]

I believe he played at it, tried to upset the put-down with his boot and succeeded. I don't agree with those who claim this warrants a penalty because it was in no way dangerous. I think the problem is what happened after; did GI knock it on after Farah dislodged it?

Respect+

 

[aussie_q_factor]

A tough decision to make in the heat and pressure of Origin? No doubt about it.

The correct decision? Yes.

 

[Zoidberg]

I think he played at it also. Maybe it was just a reaction but there's an extension of the foot right before it hiss the ground IMO.
I take the call the same way as if it was stripped with Farrah's hands, not declared a knock on by G.I.
I don't really agree with those rulings but they are the rules.

 

[Hutty1986]

I can cop losing by 2, should it have turned out that way. But I just think it's a real shame a dud call like that ended a good game of footy with 7 on the clock. Our blokes work their arses off to give themselves a real crack at beating this great Qld side and that happens.

 

[betcats]

I love some NSW fans arguement, "there is no way Farah played at it in that split second!!"

"But Inglis definitely did in that split second!"

Who made that argument?

 

[sensesmaybenumbed]

I believe he played at it, tried to upset the put-down with his boot and succeeded. I don't agree with those who claim this warrants a penalty because it was in no way dangerous. I think the problem is what happened after; did GI knock it on after Farah dislodged it?

Well said, gut.

 

[Karl]

He played at it, but it wasn't dangerous. He saw GI picking up the ball, knew where he's be placing it and tried to get a foot under it. Whether it was illegal or not is irrelevant. The try was a fair one because the ball going forward off GI's forearm was not a knock on because GI did not, could not have, played at it as it came off the boot of Farrah.

 

[Karl]

Who made that argument?

Everyone who says GI knocked on is saying that.

 

[Bretto]

I didn't think he played at it, but I can see an argument for both sides. I thought it was a knock on personally.

 

[Springs]

Everyone who says GI knocked on is saying that.

No, NSW fans are saying Inglis knocked on, regardless of whether Farah played at it or not. You're the one who brought up the spilt second crap.

 

[AuDragon]

It was a very tough 50/50 call in the Origin arena, especially under the circumstances, as it effectively ended NSW hopes of getting a win. Had it been Qld, I would've been filthy and blown up big time.

Having said that, after reviewing it several times, it was the correct call imo. Farah played at it without a doubt, even if it was instinctively, as that is not a natural movement. It then became a dislodged ball for anyone to pounce on, the same way it would've been had Farah stripped it instead, and Inglis grounded it.
Would it have been a penalty try? It really depends on the interpretation of the rule, as I agree with gUt that there was no dangerous play, but a precedent was set when Thurston was punished with a penalty try for doing the same as Farah did, albeit more obvious.

 

[Springs]

Thurston kicked out and hit Williams in the head, a bit different in my book.
Even if Farah played at it, the dislodged ball then went forward off Inglis's arms, which is why the call is wrong.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

It was a very tough 50/50 call in the Origin arena, especially under the circumstances, as it effectively ended NSW hopes of getting a win. Had it been Qld, I would've been filthy and blown up big time.

Having said that, after reviewing it several times, it was the correct call imo. Farah played at it without a doubt, even if it was instinctively, as that is not a natural movement. It then became a dislodged ball for anyone to pounce on, the same way it would've been had Farah stripped it instead, and Inglis grounded it.
Would it have been a penalty try? It really depends on the interpretation of the rule, as I agree with gUt that there was no dangerous play, but a precedent was set when Thurston was punished with a penalty try for doing the same as Farah did, albeit more obvious.

That wasn't a penalty try, it was an 8 point try. Williams grounded the ball.