The Bunker

[East Coast Tiger]

No. He's already moving towards the line before the arm touched. His movement was no stopped. He had momentum and this took him over the line. It's no different to a player being brought down short of the line and sliding over it. The movement that took him to ground is not stopped.

 

[unforgiven]

No. He's already moving towards the line before the arm touched. His movement was no stopped. He had momentum and this took him over the line. It's no different to a player being brought down short of the line and sliding over it. The movement that took him to ground is not stopped.

It actually is very different as you dont actively promote the football when sliding.

However, after reading the 2016 NRL laws and interpretations, I will concede it should have been awarded as the interpretation states that it wont be ruled a double movement if the momentum carries the to the ingoal area regardless of any second attempt to ground or promote the football.

 

[Perth Red]

You dont have to be stopped, if the arm touches the ground, even if still moving, and your held then you can't promote the ball to score. It's really a straight forward one.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

It actually is very different as you dont actively promote the football when sliding.

However, after reading the 2016 NRL laws and interpretations, I will concede it should have been awarded as the interpretation states that it wont be ruled a double movement if the momentum carries the to the ingoal area regardless of any second attempt to ground or promote the football.

Yep. Their own interpretations clearly make it even more certain. People are hung up on the fact he lunged over the line, but he had every right to.

 

[unforgiven]

Yep. Their own interpretations clearly make it even more certain. People are hung up on the fact he lunged over the line, but he had every right to.

If we all agree that his momentum would have carried him into the ingoal then yes he is allowed to make any extra effort to ground the ball.

Personally I do not like that interpretation but that is how it currently stands.

 

[Danish]

It actually is very different as you dont actively promote the football when sliding.

However, after reading the 2016 NRL laws and interpretations, I will concede it should have been awarded as the interpretation states that it wont be ruled a double movement if the momentum carries the to the ingoal area regardless of any second attempt to ground or promote the football.

The 2016 interpretations allow for promotion IF that promotion had no effect on if the ball would have ended up grounded in the ingoal.

In this case, he ended up in the ingoal, but rolled on his back held up. If he did not promote the balls position by reaching out to get it to the ground and just went with he momentum of the tackle, he would not have scored.

So the 2016 interpretation does not apply

 

[unforgiven]

The 2016 interpretations allow for promotion IF that promotion had no effect on if the ball would have ended up grounded in the ingoal.

In this case, he ended up in the ingoal, but rolled on his back held up. If he did not promote the balls position by reaching out to get it to the ground and just went with he momentum of the tackle, he would not have scored.

So the 2016 interpretation does not apply

No it doesn't. I believed the same as you until I read it.

Double Movement
A try will be awarded if:
‘a tackled player’s momentum carries him into the opponents’ in-goal where he grounds the ball even if the ball has first
touched the ground in the field of play’. Section 6 (3) (c)
In the process of scoring a try a player in possession must not promote the ball from the position the ball has been
grounded.
If the momentum of the player in possession carries him into the opponents in goal area, it will not be a double
movement if the ball would have finished over the goal line regardless of any subsequent movement of the ball or the
arm carrying the ball.

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&s...of.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHht1Ii1i_BF4xtxduCDZS0SK2wuA

 

[Danish]

I had already read the 2016 intepretations. I interpret that as saying that if the ball would have wound up grounded regardless of the second effort, it still stands.

So if a sliding player lifts his arm in an attempt to reach out and promote the ball, but winds up finishing with his entire torso in the ingoal, he won't be penalised (previously they had denied tries based on such a movement)

I don't take it to mean a tackled and held up player is allowed to just keep fighting to get the ball down using a second movement

 

[unforgiven]

I had already read the 2016 intepretations. I interpret that as saying that if the ball would have wound up grounded regardless of the second effort, it still stands.

So if a sliding player lifts his arm in an attempt to reach out and promote the ball, but winds up finishing with his entire torso in the ingoal, he won't be penalised (previously they had denied tries based on such a movement)

I don't take it to mean a tackled and held up player is allowed to just keep fighting to get the ball down using a second movement

Thats exactly what it means. I dont agree with the interpretation but yes a player sliding into the ingoal is allowed to promote the football if his entire torso ends up in the ingoal.

 

[carcharias]

It was a try
He was always going to end up in the goal
The ball was never grounded
He was never stopped
It was momentum and the roosters that got him in the position to put it down.
He pushs with his legs in the tackle because it's f**king footy for f**k sake.



If you class that as grounded then every set of six should be a penalty for double movement .

I hope the sharks win the game based on the opposition being denied a try in this fashion
I'll laugh my arse off at how f**ked it is.

 

[cooko]

When his elbow touches the ground before the line he has the ball positioned between his hand and his chest.

He is rolled over the try line by the roosters but then straitens his arm and reaches to plant the ball on the ground which is not natural momentum.

If he keeps the ball positioned where it was in then I think it would (and should) have been awarded a try but because he reaches out I can live with the bunkers call.

 

[unforgiven]

When his elbow touches the ground before the line he has the ball positioned between his hand and his chest.

He is rolled over the try line by the roosters but then straitens his arm and reaches to plant the ball on the ground which is not natural momentum.

If he keeps the ball positioned where it was in then I think it would (and should) have been awarded a try but because he reaches out I can live with the bunkers call.

I agreed at 1st but that goes against the current interpretation. If momentum carries u to the ingoal you are allowed to promote the football.

 

[carcharias]

Of course it's a f**king try
Don't worry about reading rules
( which also call it a try)
Just watch it once in real time

Try

 

[shark dressed man]

Clear no try. Time to move on.

 

[Rabbits20]

You don't think him reaching out extending his arm over his head to touch the ball to the ground was a second effort?

Napa pushed him over the try line imo. Plus there was momentum.

Looking at it in normal speed it was a try.

 

[Rabbits20]

Its interpretation changes not just every game, but during games.

It was a shocking call as Cordner was clearly obstructed and could have come over in cover to hold Opacic up.

I believe it was the right decision.

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...et-to-survive-the-season-20160730-gqh8rd.html

Bunker pressure

The pressure on referees boss Tony Archer is growing after he defended the bunker's indefensible decision to rob Brisbane rookie Herman Ese'ese of a try. The men in the video referees box overturned the on-field referee's decision, making them the only people in the universe who believe a try should not have been awarded.

Archer's decision not to call it for what it was – the biggest balls-up of the season – has heaped more pressure on the bunker, when the issue is the interpretation of the rules and a lack of feel for the game, rather than with the technology itself.

Those inside and outside Rugby League Central are concerned about Archer's stance.

 

[Timmah]

Archer's a joke. The Bunker isn't the issue - he is.

But the Ese'ese decision was still correct by current rules.

 

[kdalymc]

Of course it's a f**king try
Don't worry about reading rules
( which also call it a try)
Just watch it once in real time

Try

Best and only quote needed. It was a try FFS... Bad decision

 

[POPEYE]

Gasnier's got it right, all replays in normal speed and get on with the game