Round 14 Parra vs Storm 14 June Game Day Thread

[Eelogical]

Look, a win against the Storm anytime is a great thing. I didn't see the game but I listened to it on ABC radio. I also watched highlights. A page or two of digesting the pros and cons of who was offside and NRL rule interpretations won't matter much in the end apart from some good reading. At this stage of the season, considering everything, I am happy we are in contention for avoiding the spoon. I expected far better (season so far) but Parra supporters are used to mediocrity. Good onya Mr 300.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

That's fine. Falau then doesn't play at the ball if it's kicked into him and deflects off a storm player. Still accidental off side

Irrelevant whether Folau plays at it (see rule 14.3.b) Once it touches him every attacking player is then onside.

But anyway, we beat the f**kers, and after an awful first 15 minutes pretty much everyone put in and that's the main thing.

 

[The Elephant In The room]

bellamy with the cranky face on is always good value

i do agree with him on the refs being forced to call try/no try when going to the video if they didn't see it why should they have to guess? especially when the video refs don't have the balls to overrule them 99% of the time

The reason why the ref has to make a call in the first place is that people used to whinge because refs would send it upstairs without having an opinion even though they were often in the best place to make the call. How quickly people forget.

 

[Kornstar]

Irrelevant whether Folau plays at it (see rule 14.3.b) Once it touches him every attacking player is then onside.

But anyway, we beat the f**kers, and after an awful first 15 minutes pretty much everyone put in and that's the main thing.

It's a dumb, confusing rule imo. For what is supposed to be a simple game, there shouldn't be technicalities like this. What the lay person sees is that a player was in front of another player that is normally offside everywhere else.

But you are right, f**k that......WE WON!!!!!!!

The reason why the ref has to make a call in the first place is that people used to whinge because refs would send it upstairs without having an opinion even though they were often in the best place to make the call. How quickly people forget.

This times 1,000,000,000.......I say this to everyone who now whinges about this!

 

[strider]

That's not what the rule says. You can't gain an advantage while offside.

14.2 says you cannot encroach on a bloke waiting for the ball, and you must retire 10 metres from the bloke who first secures possession .

"14. 2 An offside player shall not take any part in the game or attempt to influence the course of the game in any way to influence the course of the game. He shall not encroach within ten metres of an opponent who is waiting for the ball and shall Retire ten metres immediately retire ten metres from any opponent who first secures possession of the ball.

Placed onside 3. An offside player is placed onside if:
(a) an opponent moves ten metres or more with the
ball.
(b) an opponent touches the ball without retaining it."

As long as the temporarily offside player did not do anything 'active' to gain an advantage (influence the course of the game) while offside (e.g. push a defender out of the road, try to jump on the ball), he's ok. He's not encroaching on a bloke 'waiting for the ball' in this circumstance, and he doesn't have to retire 10 metres back until a defender secures possession. From my recollection of what happened, looks like the right call to me.

EDIT: just watched it again. Harris does nothing to take an advantage while he's offside....he's just sliding along the ground...and doesn't attempt to interfere with play prior to the ball hitting Folau. Correct call.

nope ... by just being there he makes the parra player play at it - if he's not there the parra player may aswell just let the ball go dead, but he can't cos the melbourne player is a chance of getting it - so by just being there he his influencing the play


I have seen the EXACT - and I mean EXACT - same thing happen in the past and the referee rules the player off side

 

[Suitman]

The case is slightly different when you are talking about the positioning of attacking players directly from a kick in general play. If the one of the chasers is in front of the kicker they have the opportunity to make sure that they are not within 10 metres of the defender receiving the ball. If they don't they are intentionally gaining an advantage by being offside...even if one or more defenders touch/drop the ball.

In the case of a series of short-range ricochets, the temporarily offside players cannot just disappear and as long as they don't actively take advantage while temporarily offside there's no problem. I can't remember exactly what sequence of events was last night, but it looked ok to me at the time. Will watch the tape.

There's no way in hell that Folau had time to be put off by anything. The ball was kicked directly into him. Harris is off to Folau's side sliding along the ground at the time the ball is kicked into Folau. Folau is not looking at him. He does not interfere with play during the split second while he's offside. It's not the same as other cases where people go downtown after a bomb and put pressure on a bloke waiting for a kick even if they don't attempt a tackle or to take the ball.

Which bit of the rule says that's illegal Joely?

Irrelevant whether Folau plays at it (see rule 14.3.b) Once it touches him every attacking player is then onside.

But anyway, we beat the f**kers, and after an awful first 15 minutes pretty much everyone put in and that's the main thing.

nope ... by just being there he makes the parra player play at it - if he's not there the parra player may aswell just let the ball go dead, but he can't cos the melbourne player is a chance of getting it - so by just being there he his influencing the play


I have seen the EXACT - and I mean EXACT - same thing happen in the past and the referee rules the player off side

Exactly, and I've also seen this ruled before.

Barry O'Speedwagon, is a bullshite name. He's actually Barry O'Gommersall.

Suity

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

I certainly remember a try being disallowed due to the 10 metre thing, even though the player did nothing.

I'm just happy we got a win. Well, relieved is more accurate.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Pretty harsh, Suity. I'd hesitate to accuse my sworn enemy of being a Gomersall.

 

[Dibs]

Exactly, and I've also seen this ruled before.

Barry O'Speedwagon, is a bullshite name. He's actually Barry O'Gommersall.

Suity

Have to say I've seen it before as well and you can ignore what the rule book says if Ray warren is to believed. He has claimed in the past that their are certain things not allowed in today's game that the rule book says is fine

 

[yy_cheng]

did anyone see lussick pack down in the scrum for melbourne?

 

[SDM]

No, was too busy kicking the dog

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Exactly, and I've also seen this ruled before.

Barry O'Speedwagon, is a bullshite name. He's actually Barry O'Gommersall.

Suity

I disagree with the above. All that matters in this case is what happens in the split second between the ball leaving Green's boot and it hitting Folau. Does Harris interfere with play in that fraction of a second? I don't think he did, the ref called try, that's it as far as I'm concerned.

Do any of you blokes believe that Folau could have done anything to avoid the ball hitting him if Harris was not there?

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Pretty harsh, Suity. I'd hesitate to accuse my sworn enemy of being a Gomersall.

That's right. I'm out of here!

EDIT: for at least 3 seconds.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

He was part of the play while offside. Even for that split second he was part of the play.

The rules can say whatever technicality it likes, but at the end of the day it was offside and shouldn't have been a try. But hey, it's only parramatta so we won't here anything else about it and let's all praise what a great call it was.

So, if a video ref applies the rules of the game to the situation observed (that's their job), you want to criticise them?

You're once again setting up a paper tiger, and kicked it down. Who is praising what a 'great call' it was? I'm just saying that it looks the correct call to me. Unlike some others I'm capable of viewing decisions that go for and against us slightly objectively (at least after I've calmed down )

 

[Jake the snake]

I certainly remember a try being disallowed due to the 10 metre thing, even though the player did nothing.

I'm just happy we got a win. Well, relieved is more accurate.

It's a joke, the moment the ball touched the foot of the Melbourne player it rendered the other Melbourne player (who was in front) offside. Offside is offside. Whether it's accidental or not. He was offside even before the ball deflected off folau. It should have been a penalty. How many times have trys been disallowed for accidental offside?

But idiot Bellamy and the Media wants to focus on the disallowed knock on try that went against him which was absolutely correct.

 

[oldmancraigy]

And AFTER Lussick packs in for Melbourne he then drops the ball for us to give them another last gasp attempt.

Oh dear.

I'm not saying Ryan Tandy, but, Ryan Tandy???

 

[strider]

I disagree with the above. All that matters in this case is what happens in the split second between the ball leaving Green's boot and it hitting Folau. Does Harris interfere with play in that fraction of a second? I don't think he did, the ref called try, that's it as far as I'm concerned.

Do any of you blokes believe that Folau could have done anything to avoid the ball hitting him if Harris was not there?

so now you are saying he didn't play at it (ie he didn't touch it, it touched him - naughty ball) ... in which case harris is still offside

it was harris' presence, his vibe, that influenced it .... I rest my case

 

[strider]

And AFTER Lussick packs in for Melbourne he then drops the ball for us to give them another last gasp attempt.

Oh dear.

I'm not saying Ryan Tandy, but, Ryan Tandy???

:-k

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

so now you are saying he didn't play at it (ie he didn't touch it, it touched him - naughty ball) ... in which case harris is still offside

it was harris' presence, his vibe, that influenced it .... I rest my case

Fair enough

We disagree on the impact of his aura.

 

[Joely01]

So, if a video ref applies the rules of the game to the situation observed (that's their job), you want to criticise them?

You're once again setting up a paper tiger, and kicked it down. Who is praising what a 'great call' it was? I'm just saying that it looks the correct call to me. Unlike some others I'm capable of viewing decisions that go for and against us slightly objectively (at least after I've calmed down )

I'm still locking in that it's offside!