raiders no-try

jimmythehand · Jul 31, 2005

I'm sure this would have been talked about in one of the raiders match threads.

But if you think the no-try in the last couple of minutes should have been awarded then you are 100% WRONG. Wayne Bennett got the technical details right when he said that as soon as the ball left the players hand he has lost control of it. Slamming it into the ground does not constitute gaining control again - he had to catch it again first before he could score a try. Them's the rules.

aussies1st · Jul 31, 2005

Who is to say he didn't have control. I have seen guys hold a rugby ball with one hand. But i have seen the same hand control on the ball being awarded a try time and time again this season.

Bennett is right with his rules and everything but where is the consistency.

Had those type of tries not being awarded all year i would except that call but it hasn't

jimmythehand · Jul 31, 2005

the key in this case is that he lost control of the ball when it left his hand, and he did not regain control before the ball hit the ground - that is called a knock-on. If it was a situation like he was chasing a kick and grounded it like that, it would have been a try as he would not have lost control of the ball.

Paullyboy · Jul 31, 2005

Actually Jimmy you are the one who is 100% wrong. Dont just go and believe everything Bennett says because he is wrong most of the time. You wouldnt know if if you read the mainstream media though as they think he is some sort of undisputable mythical creature who is perfect in every way without actually stopping to question the dribble he has just said.

Frawley had contact with the ball and it never left his hand, he forced the ball into the ground without it ever having lost contact with his hand. That my friend constitutes a try, wheter you or Mr Bennett like it or not.

He or you may not like it, but thats just the way the rules are.

salivor · Jul 31, 2005

He had no control of it as the ball was slipping away out of the side of the hand and even if you look at the bounce of the ball once it's hit the ground, it's bounced naturally as if there has been on force placed on it. Saying similar incidents have been awarded throughout the year is not a defence, it just shows there have been some shockers of decisions awarded.

jimmythehand · Jul 31, 2005

Paullyboy said:
Actually Jimmy you are the one who is 100% wrong. Dont just go and believe everything Bennett says because he is wrong most of the time. You wouldnt know if if you read the mainstream media though as they think he is some sort of undisputable mythical creature who is perfect in every way without actually stopping to question the dribble he has just said.

Frawley had contact with the ball and it never left his hand, he forced the ball into the ground without it ever having lost contact with his hand. That my friend constitutes a try, wheter you or Mr Bennett like it or not.

He or you may not like it, but thats just the way the rules are.

If as you say the ball never left his hand, then you're right it should have been a try. I have only seen the replays on the Footy Show, and on one of them I definitely thought the ball had left his hand.

Paullyboy · Jul 31, 2005

Listen mate, THAT DOESNT MATTER!

To score a try a player just needs to ground the ball without them losing contact with it. They have loosened the rules in the last few years to mean that control doesnt matter.

Im not saying I agree with the rules but thats the way they are.

That was as fair as tries come. But when the broncos are involved you know it will go their way, *cough* judiciary *cough*, *cough*Mander*cough*

Manu Vatuvei · Jul 31, 2005

IMO the rule is, and always has been, that if you have your hand on the ball when it hits the ground, it's a try.

Paullyboy · Jul 31, 2005

melon.... · Jul 31, 2005

Bad luck Raiders.....there is no such thing as Benefit of Doubt going to the attacking side. It cost us agains Manly too when Soliola clearly grounded the ball yet was called held up at Ref's Call. Go Figure....

woodgers · Jul 31, 2005

I actually agreed with what Bennett was saying on the Footy Show, I liken it to what the AFL consider a mark when a player clearly drops the ball. The problem is that I see them given in every game, every week. If they are going to call a 'No Try' then we have to see it every other time as well. For once I agree with Gould.

Paullyboy · Jul 31, 2005

Unfortunately though for Mr Bennett, his thoughts are not consistent with the rules of our game. even thought he clearly thinks otherwise and seems to have fooled all Broncos fans into thinking that as well.

salivor · Jul 31, 2005

Paullyboy said:
Unfortunately though for Mr Bennett, his thoughts are not consistent with the rules of our game. even thought he clearly thinks otherwise and seems to have fooled all Broncos fans into thinking that as well.

Thats funny because Broncos fans have been saying it was a no try over the last 24 hours before Bennetts comments on the footy show had even been aired. Is this like your theory that every Broncos fan reads the Courier Mail and uses it to form their opinions i.e. a load of sh*t?

Raiders Plight · Jul 31, 2005

I thought both the Berrigan and Frawley tries should have been awarded. Though the Frawley try had less doubt than the berrigan try.

I hate to say it but in the end the broncos just outclassed us in the backline. I thought our forwards were great, particularly Miller, Withers and Croker but we just have no strike power out wide. Mogg and Howell are deadset nuffies in attack, they are slow and don't have a hope in hell of breaking the line against a side like the broncos. We really need some size and speed in the backline.

jimmythehand · Jul 31, 2005

Paullyboy said:
Listen mate, THAT DOESNT MATTER!

To score a try a player just needs to ground the ball without them losing contact with it. They have loosened the rules in the last few years to mean that control doesnt matter.

Im not saying I agree with the rules but thats the way they are.

That was as fair as tries come. But when the broncos are involved you know it will go their way, *cough* judiciary *cough*, *cough*Mander*cough*

My understanding is that control doesn't matter - if you have not previously lost control of the ball. Situations like chasing a kick just require downward pressure on the ball without having to gain control of the ball.

But when someone is carrying the ball, and they lose it, then they must regain control of the ball before it hits the ground - otherwise it is a knock on. It is pretty obvious to me that this has been the ruling, and I can't disagree with it.

Let's put this in a different perspective.

Take away the in-goal area, and pretend that his hand stays on top of the ball after it has hit the ground (ie it hasn't flown away). Can you argue that he has not knocked the ball on in general play?

Iafeta · Jul 31, 2005

You sure?

When you dive on a grubber in goal you don't have control of the ball, but you have downward pressure. Which from what I've seen, in all probability (and hence benefit of the doubt could have been applied) Frawley did apply downward pressure.

nqboy · Jul 31, 2005

jimmythehand said:
I'm sure this would have been talked about in one of the raiders match threads.

But if you think the no-try in the last couple of minutes should have been awarded then you are 100% WRONG. Wayne Bennett got the technical details right when he said that as soon as the ball left the players hand he has lost control of it. Slamming it into the ground does not constitute gaining control again - he had to catch it again first before he could score a try. Them's the rules.

Rule link?

jimmythehand · Jul 31, 2005

Iafeta said:
You sure?

When you dive on a grubber in goal you don't have control of the ball, but you have downward pressure. Which from what I've seen, in all probability (and hence benefit of the doubt could have been applied) Frawley did apply downward pressure.

The difference in this case is that you have not knocked the ball on, because you have not lost control of the ball. "Not having control" and "losing control" are different.

Iafeta · Jul 31, 2005

I'd love to see someone post that NRL ruling up if that is the case, I've never heard of it being ruled on like that.

Balmain Bug · Jul 31, 2005

jimmythehand said:
I'm sure this would have been talked about in one of the raiders match threads.

But if you think the no-try in the last couple of minutes should have been awarded then you are 100% WRONG. Wayne Bennett got the technical details right when he said that as soon as the ball left the players hand he has lost control of it. Slamming it into the ground does not constitute gaining control again - he had to catch it again first before he could score a try. Them's the rules.

The ball never left his hand.

raiders no-try

Juniors

Moderator

Juniors

Coach

First Grade

Juniors

Coach

Coach

Coach

Coach

Bench

Coach

First Grade

Juniors

Juniors

Referee

First Grade

Juniors

Referee

Juniors