Ref Watch 2014 (aka the Skeepe Thread)

[Mr Spock!]

If that wasn't a double movement then I must assume double movement's no longer exist.

 

[Tommy Smith]

Clear double movement any day of the week.

Arm carrying the ball hit the ground.

The last Panthers try was fair as well. Miniciello's fault for taking it too easy.

Are you blind?

His arm was half a foot clear of the ground.

 

[innsaneink]

Clear double movement any day of the week.

Arm carrying the ball hit the ground.

The last Panthers try was fair as well. Miniciello's fault for taking it too easy.

Clear troll any day of the week

 

[Mr Spock!]

Are you blind?

His arm was half a foot clear of the ground.

It hit the ground.

Wishful thinking won't change that fact.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

I'm no Roosters fan but the no try for Casty should have gone upstairs instead of a penalty. Pretty conclusive (video) that his arm never touched the ground and would have put Roosters up 18-4. No wonder Trent Robinson was spewing at the press conference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiR5TXXwbYM

It would have taken the score to 18-4 which would have been an unacceptable situation for the NRL, hence Maxwell had no choice to blow the whistle and penalize him.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

Three expert commentators in the box and none of them even hinted that it could have been a try.

Three muppets perhaps.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

It hit the ground.

Wishful thinking won't change that fact.

Is that what your guide dog told you? His arm was no where near the ground.

 

[Loose Cannon]

But he didn't call held... otherwise he would have instructed Casty to go back and play the ball as per the rules this year.

Ok, let's assume this was the case. If the referee is capable of sending it back, is the double movement obsolete? I get why it's changed elsewhere and agree wholeheartedly, but if there is no consequence why wouldn't players try to force their way over on the last when they are clearly held?

Double movement rule needs to stay, regardless of what anyone thinks of tonight's call.

 

[magpie4ever]

Hate to rain on your parade, but the ball doesn't need to touch the ground - it is all to do with momentum. Otherwise, how would a player held upright ever be considered tackled.

I'm afraid Remi's momentum had stopped, hence - double movement.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

Hate to rain on your parade, but the ball doesn't need to touch the ground - it is all to do with momentum. Otherwise, how would a player held upright ever be considered tackled.

I'm afraid Remi's momentum had stopped, hence - double movement.

Sorry mate but you are 100% wrong. In that example that you described, the referee has to call held, which he didn't. Maxwell penalized Casty and motioned by tapping his elbow and saying his elbow touched the ground.

 

[magpie4ever]

Sorry mate but you are 100% wrong. In that example that you described, the referee has to call held, which he didn't. Maxwell penalized Casty and motioned by tapping his elbow and saying his elbow touched the ground.

There is no rule that requires the ref to called held for a tackle to be completed.

I'm not sticking up for the refs, they are f**kwits; but, his momentum had definitely stopped with a defender still attached, therefore the ball can't be advanced. That is the offical rule.

It wouldn't had been a try in 1908 (or whenever they change from the union ruck and mual rules) and it is still not a try in 2014, regardless of whether the dope touches his elbow or not. As they say he wouldn't know his arse from his elbow.

 

[Game_Breaker]

Seriously, watch it again. Ball touches the post and sits up before it's flicked back in. Should have been no try.

The ball was no where near the post, it was half a metre away from it

It's a try

 

[ellskimore]

Don't get the fuss here. Maybe the penalty call for double movement is contentious but it certainly was not going to be awarded a try no matter what way you look at it. It's either double movement or he is held. How people jump to "Oh it would have been 18-4..." I don't understand.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

Don't get the fuss here. Maybe the penalty call for double movement is contentious but it certainly was not going to be awarded a try no matter what way you look at it. It's either double movement or he is held. How people jump to "Oh it would have been 18-4..." I don't understand.

On what basis was he held? His arm did not touch the ground, his momentum had not stopped and the referee did not call held. If the referee calls held and the player plays on, it is no longer a penalty in the current rules. Players are ordered to go back and play the ball. Maxwell clearly indicated no try as his elbow contacted the ground, which it didn't. Not that he called held.

 

[TheFrog]

And? So what if it did?

The ball didn't hit the corner post, Mini did. And even if the ball had hit the corner post, it would be in play until either it hit the ground or was touched by a player who had a foot on/over the touch line. Neither of which happened. Old Man Mini had his pants pulled down by the Panthers, yet again.

On what basis was he held? His arm did not touch the ground, his momentum had not stopped and the referee did not call held. If the referee calls held and the player plays on, it is no longer a penalty in the current rules. Players are ordered to go back and play the ball. Maxwell clearly indicated no try as his elbow contacted the ground, which it didn't. Not that he called held.

You might not have heard the ref call held but he signalled a penalty immediately which would suggest he did consider the tackle completed. And if you look carefully, the arm carrying the ball did contact the ground. Maybe the Roosters need to cut the grass shorter for their next game.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

The ball didn't hit the corner post, Mini did. And even if the ball had hit the corner post, it would be in play until either it hit the ground or was touched by a player who had a foot on/over the touch line. Neither of which happened. Old Man Mini had his pants pulled down by the Panthers, yet again.



You might not have heard the ref call held but he signalled a penalty immediately which would suggest he did consider the tackle completed. And if you look carefully, the arm carrying the ball did contact the ground. Maybe the Roosters need to cut the grass shorter for their next game.

Based on the rule book it was a try, bottom line was Jared Maxwell got it wrong. What his motivation was for not going to the video is unclear.

Section 11- 2 (c)

If an attacking player in possession is brought down near the goal line and the ball is not grounded it is permissible to place the ball over, or on, the line for a try. In this case, the tackle has not been completed.

http://www.nrl.com/portals/nrl/RadEditor/Documents/NRL Rules book 2013FINAL.pdf

 

[retch]

...

 

[Binga]

A tackle is complete when a players monentum has stopped.. In this case the rooster players monentum had clearly stopped and he started it again by crawling forrward twice, then tried to get up to continue his run. The ref had every right to call a double movement

 

[Danish]

If it was Sam Burgess they would be writing songs about how unbelievable a play it was. The fact that not a man in the commentary picked up on it - instead they just wanted to make fun of the fact he is foreign - was really telling of the bias being shown in the box. I assume Rabs had dropped some cash on te panthers

 

[Martin Bella's Luvhandles]

Not even in union can you crawl along the ground while you have someone on top of you. Momentum had clearly stopped, he was on the ground with someone on him.

Do you know the rules you dickwad?