Senter's "try"

[miccle]

Guys I do feel for you - losing that game last night would've hurt and a lot of you are taking it out on the no try awarding with 59 seconds to go.

But watch Senter's fair try again and tell me there was no double movement. That try almost won yas the game and trust me - there would've been a LOT more controversy had that been the case.

 

[Dr Crane]

But watch Senter's fair try again and tell me there was no double movement.

I've seen other tries quite similar to that given.

 

[The_MaFeeLi_Tiger]

Guys I do feel for you - losing that game last night would've hurt and a lot of you are taking it out on the no try awarding with 59 seconds to go.

But watch Senter's fair try again and tell me there was no double movement. That try almost won yas the game and trust me - there would've been a LOT more controversy had that been the case.

Are you kidding? that was a try.....do you have eyes?

 

[The_MaFeeLi_Tiger]

Guys I do feel for you - losing that game last night would've hurt and a lot of you are taking it out on the no try awarding with 59 seconds to go.

But watch Senter's fair try again and tell me there was no double movement. That try almost won yas the game and trust me - there would've been a LOT more controversy had that been the case.

Are you kidding? that was a try.....do you have eyes?

 

[HappyTiger]

I dont know the ruling but there was no complaint made by warren smith or Laurie Daley on the grounding of the ball.He picked up a loose ball then rolled over to the other side to find some grass.I dont see alot wrong with it.

 

[miccle]

I'm pretty sure he was held before he rolled over and placed the ball down. If he wasn't, i would see nothing wrong. But I've watched it around 6-7 times this morning (at home on telly, just to make sure I wasn't too drunk to form an opinion last night) and I still remain adament that I've seen better ones than that called "double movements".

 

[HappyTiger]

Yeah,you could be right mate.Im not sure what the rules say.I do think if he had gained the ball in field of play and rolled over the try line then it would have been a double movement so based on those rules youd lean toward it being a double movement.but because it came from lost possesion i have a feeling it changes things.

 

[Glennb]

Guys I do feel for you - losing that game last night would've hurt and a lot of you are taking it out on the no try awarding with 59 seconds to go.

But watch Senter's fair try again and tell me there was no double movement. That try almost won yas the game and trust me - there would've been a LOT more controversy had that been the case.

Darren Senter caught the ball OVER the line. You can't commit a double movement once you are over the line. :roll:

Glennb

 

[miccle]

Ummm yes you can Glennb. Scenario - someone catches the ball over the line, but is held up. He then rolls over and plants the ball. No try. A double movement just means an extra movement after the play is completed, nothing to do with ingoals mate :roll:

 

[yappy]

Nope Miccle wrong. If he's held up he's held up - no try true, but not a double movement, just held up. If you're over the line you can fight until the ref calls held up to ground it. There is one instance where you can be called for a double movement and that is if your body is in the in-goal and the ball (or ball carrying arm) is grounded in the field of play. Then if you advance the ball you've committed a double movement, but it ain't going to happen very often now is it? I haven't seen the replay but if Senter had the ball in the in-goal before rolling over then he's sweet.

 

[Tigerpete]

Ok, so say Senter had pounced on a loose ball in the field of play, I think the referee would've told him that he's got to make a play, he cant just lie there and be held. So in this case when Senter picked the ball up he had to make a play and was within his rights to do what he did. So that part of the try for me was pretty straight forward, Still its the ugliest try i think i've ever seen.

 

[jirskyr]

It wasn't a double-movement because he didn't advance the ball to score after being tackled. I'm fairly certain you cannot perform a double-movement inside the in-goal.

When tackled in the in-goal you are allowed to perform movements to force the ball down. Many many tries have been awarded because the player is not advancing the ball, but rather placing it on the ground where he was tackled.

The onus is on the defence to prevent a player from grounding the ball where he crossed the line. The attacker can wrestle as much as he likes to hit the turf. Its the same with tackles in-field, you are allowed any struggling movement on the spot until held is called.

Its up to the ref to call held-up if he believes movement is fully stopped.

 

[EWS]

It was definately not double movement.

There were a few things that could have lead to a no-try, but double movemnet was not one of them.

 

[tiger_nick]

Guys I do feel for you - losing that game last night would've hurt and a lot of you are taking it out on the no try awarding with 59 seconds to go.

But watch Senter's fair try again and tell me there was no double movement. That try almost won yas the game and trust me - there would've been a LOT more controversy had that been the case.

Yeah and it would be terrible to have refeering controversy in Wests favour for once. :roll:

 

[TigerMo]

Stop watching the slow replay because I watched the slow replay at first and I said no try straight away, then they finally showed it in normal speed and it was a clear try.

It's not what happens in the slow replay, It's what happens in normal speed.