raiders no-try

[FullySick]

Like Aussies1st said, if it was the Broncos that were denied a try in the 78th minute while they were behind i'd love to hear him say..."Yes, the video ref got it exactly correct, my player didnt score that try becuase he lost control of the ball, and once again the officials are doing an absolutely terrific job".

Please.

And besides, what the hell happened to the benefit to the attacking team rule? I think that whole concept should be scrapped to save furthur embarasment....and that INCLUDES Berrigans no try.

 

[aussies1st]

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.

Bennett should have just said we got a way with one thats life.

 

[jimmythehand]

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

I wouldn't think so. to "regain" something is to have possession of it. If you are touching something it does not mean you have possession of it.

This is why I made the point about it happening in general play. If someone loses it, and controls it by forcing it into the ground, then it is definitely a knock on because they did not regain possession before it hit the ground.

I'd probably agree that their should be an exception to this happening over the try line. But there is nothing in the rules to say that forcing the ball over the try-line constitutes regaining the ball. The law actually says once you have knocked on you have to have the ball BEFORE it hits the ground.

To all those that think he didn't knock the ball on it's irrelevant to the debate. Of course it's a try if he didn't knock the ball on to begin with.

 

[Panthers_God]

definently a try
but Schifoske wouldve missed teh goal anyway
lol

 

[aussies1st]

Well we will never know now

 

[jimmythehand]

I can't believe no-one agrees with me. I thought it was a clear cut no-try under the rules and interpretations of the game. Let's hear what Finchy has to say about it on Monday - if he doesn't agree with me I will humbly accept defeat, otherwise you guys need to brush up on your knowledge of the game

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

This is why I made the point about it happening in general play. If someone loses it, and controls it by forcing it into the ground, then it is definitely a knock on because they did not regain possession before it hit the ground.

I'd probably agree that their should be an exception to this happening over the try line. But there is nothing in the rules to say that forcing the ball over the try-line constitutes regaining the ball. The law actually says once you have knocked on you have to have the ball BEFORE it hits the ground

What if you simply place the ball on the ground in general play? I suspect that that would be a knock-on as well. As I said, the entire act of scoring a try is in effect a dispensation from the knock-on rule. When a player forces the ball, he is deemed to be "in possession" of it.

 

[griff]

What if you simply place the ball on the ground in general play? I suspect that that would be a knock-on as well. As I said, the entire act of scoring a try is in effect a dispensation from the knock-on rule. When a player forces the ball, he is deemed to be "in possession" of it.

Technically at the play the ball, the rules say you have to "drop or place the ball in front of you". Of course in actual practice if you drop the ball in front of you while playing it they will ping you for a knock on.

 

[Kiwi]

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.

I agree with that. Both tries should have been awarded, meaning the result stays the same, Broncos win. the only thing that has got me taking digs ect is that it is just seen as the Raiders being cost the game by a bad call. All calls being correct the Broncos win 30 - 22/4 instead of 24 - 18

 

[edabomb]

I agree with that. Both tries should have been awarded, meaning the result stays the same, Broncos win. the only thing that has got me taking digs ect is that it is just seen as the Raiders being cost the game by a bad call. All calls being correct the Broncos win 30 - 22/4 instead of 24 - 18

Not really, cos the Webcke knock on was given a penalty, and Brisbane scored instead of Canberra having the scrum feed. A strip on suspicion it would seem. But like Jason Costigan says: "it'll be fish and cheeps paper tommorow" :lol: .

 

[nqboy]

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

Thanks for clearing that up. Would you say you have the same knowledge as the professional commentators on the Nein team? Coz they have no clue on technical things.

 

[Kiwi]

Not really, cos the Webcke knock on was given a penalty, and Brisbane scored instead of Canberra having the scrum feed. A strip on suspicion it would seem. But like Jason Costigan says: "it'll be fish and cheeps paper tommorow" :lol: .

Wasn't the penalty given for holding down, working Webcke over on the ground and not for a strip? Even though the replay showed Hindmarsh had a hand on the ball.

 

[lotm]

I agree with that. Both tries should have been awarded, meaning the result stays the same, Broncos win. the only thing that has got me taking digs ect is that it is just seen as the Raiders being cost the game by a bad call. All calls being correct the Broncos win 30 - 22/4 instead of 24 - 18

people who think they can predict the future are morons. if berrigan scored that try, you have no idea what may have happened. seymour may have pulled a hammy taking the conversion. lockyer may have sprained his ankle walking back over half way. webke may have strained his back trying to help lockyer up. the broncos may have lost the ball from the kickoff and the raiders score and go on to thrash the broncos by 30. of course, the reverse is also true. the broncos may have gone on to score 30 points of their own.

you just don't know.

 

[Kiwi]

people who think they can predict the future are morons. if berrigan scored that try, you have no idea what may have happened. seymour may have pulled a hammy taking the conversion. lockyer may have sprained his ankle walking back over half way. webke may have strained his back trying to help lockyer up. the broncos may have lost the ball from the kickoff and the raiders score and go on to thrash the broncos by 30. of course, the reverse is also true. the broncos may have gone on to score 30 points of their own.

you just don't know.

I guess we'll never know because it should have been awarded, but apparently the only call that matters is the one against the Raiders.

 

[lotm]

i suppose it's no use arguing with you. you see what you want to see, rarely the truth.

 

[salivor]

i suppose it's no use arguing with you. you see what you want to see, rarely the truth.

Yep no use as it's darn right foolish to predict the future over Berrigans decision but ok for every Raiders fan and his dog to predict that Schif would've slotted that conversion from the sideline with ease.

 

[Big Pete]

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.....

Thing was we've been in your position and I don't think we saw 5 topics or so dedicated to one reffing mistake.

Also it's not like everyone is 100% that Clint would've got the kick so whats all the fuss?

Canberra played well, nearly beat the top team in the comp. you should be proud of your team. However you choose not to and keep on whinging. Look on the brightside of things.

 

[Meanie]

people who think they can predict the future are morons. if berrigan scored that try, you have no idea what may have happened. seymour may have pulled a hammy taking the conversion. lockyer may have sprained his ankle walking back over half way. webke may have strained his back trying to help lockyer up. the broncos may have lost the ball from the kickoff and the raiders score and go on to thrash the broncos by 30. of course, the reverse is also true. the broncos may have gone on to score 30 points of their own.

you just don't know.

Likewise with the Frawley try if it'd been awarded, Schif might've missed the conversion, the Raiders drop the ball off the kick off, Bronco's score. What if/Might've/Whatever.

PS. Can we just merge all these threads into one big "Broncos/Raiders/CaTaStRoPhE!~!~/Purple Monkey Dishwasher" thread?

 

[NPK]

Wasn't the penalty given for holding down, working Webcke over on the ground and not for a strip? Even though the replay showed Hindmarsh had a hand on the ball.

The replay clearly showed Hindmarsh pulled the ball from Webcke's grasp. Fair penalty.

 

[VictorTheViking]

Thing was we've been in your position and I don't think we saw 5 topics or so dedicated to one reffing mistake.

Also it's not like everyone is 100% that Clint would've got the kick so whats all the fuss?

Canberra played well, nearly beat the top team in the comp. you should be proud of your team. However you choose not to and keep on whinging. Look on the brightside of things.

How can you look on the brightside pete if calls come out like that, not at one stage did his hand lose contact with the ball, and if he didnt have any downward pressure the ball would not have speared off at the angle it did when it hit the ground, its things like this that f**k up what was an awesome night.