raiders no-try

[Manu Vatuvei]

JTH, are you just making this rule up? Even if that is the rule it's pretty irrelevant, because it hasn't been applied like that for years (if ever).

 

[Raider Azz]

jimmythehand you are just making this up as you go along just to prove your argument. No where in the rule book does it mention differences between "losing control" and "not having control". Frawley applied downward pressure on the ball, and the ball never left his hand either therefore it should have been a try.

 

[jimmythehand]

Whilst I do not read a rule book religiously I do consider myself to have a very good understanding of interpretations.

I don't understand all these comments about "it hasn't been applied like this before" or "plenty of similar tries have been awarded this year". I cannot think of one similar incident this year where a try has been awarded on the basis of someone losing control of the ball and subsequently having downward pressure on it. Examples please?

If you don't think the ball ever left his hand then I'd agree with you the try should have been awarded. I've only seen 3 replays of the incident, and 2 of the 3 replays (side on, which explains why) did not show up the ball leaving the hand. But I'm convinced that the head on shot clearly shows the ball leaving his hand.

Let's wait and see what Finchy says on Monday, I'm sure he'll collaborate what I'm saying.

 

[jimmythehand]

jimmythehand you are just making this up as you go along just to prove your argument. No where in the rule book does it mention differences between "losing control" and "not having control". Frawley applied downward pressure on the ball, and the ball never left his hand either therefore it should have been a try.

Raider_Azz, maybe you can post the rule book definition of a knock on here?

 

[simon says]

Definitely a try......and didnt I laugh my head off after it was awarded no try.

Raiders losing is good for the Tigers top 8 chances.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Put it this way. The act of forcing the ball to score a try would constitute a knock-on in general play. Hence, putting the ball down to score a try is a special exception, a legitimate way of controlling the ball/not knocking it on. IMO if you lose control of the ball, but get a hand on it to force it prior to it touching the ground, it is exactly the same as if you juggled a ball in general play and then caught it. The end result is that you forced the ball in the accepted way.

 

[edabomb]

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.

Exactly. Bennets argument doesn't hold much with me because 95% of slamdowns wouldn't have control if their 'hand was going into a well' as he put it. We would basically have to eliminate the slam put down, and in time the one handed put down in this situation.

Remember that try Stacey Jones scored in 99(?) where he slammed it down and Eddie Ward in the box gave it no try, still the worst call ever.

 

[jimmythehand]

Taken from the NRL website:

Knock-On
means to knock the ball towards the opponents' dead ball line with hand or arm, while playing at the ball.

Apparently it is debatable whether or not he did knock-on, but as I said I'm convinced on 1 of the three replays I saw that the ball did leave his hand.

Accidental
If, after knocking-on accidentally, the player knocking-on regains or kicks the ball before it touches the ground, a goal post, cross bar or an opponent, then play shall be allowed to proceed. Otherwise play shall stop and a scrum shall be formed except after the fifth play-the-ball.


Okay the key point here is "regains the ball". Presuming that he did knock the ball on, at no stage did he "regain" it before it touched the ground. Thierry Henry there is no mention of "grounding the ball' as being a legitimate way to prevent the knock-on.

 

[jimmythehand]

Exactly. Bennets argument doesn't hold much with me because 95% of slamdowns wouldn't have control if their 'hand was going into a well' as he put it. We would basically have to eliminate the slam put down, and in time the one handed put down in this situation.

Remember that try Stacey Jones scored in 99(?) where he slammed it down and Eddie Ward in the box gave it no try, still the worst call ever.

You're missing the point - once you lose control of the ball you have to regain control before you can slam it down. Slamming it down is not "regaining" control.

 

[edabomb]

Taken from the NRL website:

Knock-On
means to knock the ball towards the opponents' dead ball line with hand or arm, while playing at the ball.

Apparently it is debatable whether or not he did knock-on, but as I said I'm convinced on 1 of the three replays I saw that the ball did leave his hand.

Accidental
If, after knocking-on accidentally, the player knocking-on regains or kicks the ball before it touches the ground, a goal post, cross bar or an opponent, then play shall be allowed to proceed. Otherwise play shall stop and a scrum shall be formed except after the fifth play-the-ball.


Okay the key point here is "regains the ball". Presuming that he did knock the ball on, at no stage did he "regain" it before it touched the ground. Thierry Henry there is no mention of "grounding the ball' as being a legitimate way to prevent the knock-on.

Fact is, if you slow down all one handed putdowns the majority will have a bobble. Thats why real speed is best to analyse the forcing of the ball. If this rule is going to be taken absolutely literally (against common sense) you'd find every one handed put down going upstairs or mass protest everytime a one handed putdown is given on the spot.

 

[aussies1st]

Put it this way. The act of forcing the ball to score a try would constitute a knock-on in general play. Hence, putting the ball down to score a try is a special exception, a legitimate way of controlling the ball/not knocking it on. IMO if you lose control of the ball, but get a hand on it to force it prior to it touching the ground, it is exactly the same as if you juggled a ball in general play and then caught it. The end result is that you forced the ball in the accepted way.

100% agree. There should be a special excemption on ball control for tries.

Put it this way if the roles were reversed and the broncos forced the ball the way frawley did and it was given no try (although it probably would have been given a try) Bennett wouldn't be saying "Oh that wasn't a try, he clearly had no control of it", he would be blowing up

 

[edabomb]

You're missing the point - once you lose control of the ball you have to regain control before you can slam it down. Slamming it down is not "regaining" control.

IMO it is. If he can change the course of the ball with his hand (in a deliberate course) he has control.

 

[Big Pete]

100% agree. There should be a special excemption on ball control for tries.

Put it this way if the roles were reversed and the broncos forced the ball the way frawley did and it was given no try (although it probably would have been given a try) Bennett wouldn't be saying "Oh that wasn't a try, he clearly had no control of it", he would be blowing up

Frawley actually cost us a game against the Dragons in 2003 we know how it feels, thing is it's a day old, Canberra lost, just get over it.

 

[VictorTheViking]

Taken from the NRL website:

Knock-On
means to knock the ball towards the opponents' dead ball line with hand or arm, while playing at the ball.

Apparently it is debatable whether or not he did knock-on, but as I said I'm convinced on 1 of the three replays I saw that the ball did leave his hand.

Accidental
If, after knocking-on accidentally, the player knocking-on regains or kicks the ball before it touches the ground, a goal post, cross bar or an opponent, then play shall be allowed to proceed. Otherwise play shall stop and a scrum shall be formed except after the fifth play-the-ball.


Okay the key point here is "regains the ball". Presuming that he did knock the ball on, at no stage did he "regain" it before it touched the ground. Thierry Henry there is no mention of "grounding the ball' as being a legitimate way to prevent the knock-on.

The trouble with your arguement is that the ball never left contact with his hand, regardless of whether he had control of it or not, he applied downward pressure, which is a try if im not mistaken........

 

[Stranger]

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.

Thats when grounding from a kick.

But still IMO i think i would have awarded it.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

I'm not advocating a "special exception" to be written into the rules, I'm just saying it's already there. Where abouts in the knock-on law does it provide an exception for putting the ball down to score a try? What I'm saying is,when the ball hits the ground in the in-goal with a players hand on it, it is deemed to be under control by definition. Otherwise there would be no such thing as a try.

 

[VictorTheViking]

Frawley actually cost us a game against the Dragons in 2003 we know how it feels, thing is it's a day old, Canberra lost, just get over it.

If the Broncos were in our position and that try was against them you would be blowing up aswell given that it seems clear now that it was a try.....

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

If, after knocking-on accidentally, the player knocking-on regains...the ball before it touches the ground

If the player gets his hand on the ball to force it in the in-goal, surely he has "regained" it.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Does anyone remember a try that Michael Crocker scored in the 2003 Origin where the same sort of thing happened? The ball came loose as he was putting it down, but he got his hand back to it before it hit the ground.

 

[griff]

I find it odd that Waybe Bennett doesn't know the rules. There is nothing in there about "control", and never has been.

He applied downward pressure, and the ball did not leave his hand until it came in contact with the ingoal.

On the Footy Show Wayne Bennett said that if the ground hadn't have been there he would have lost it. Well newsflash Wayno, the ground was there.