What's new
By:
Advanced search…
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Ropati try

Manu Vatuvei

Manu Vatuvei

Coach
Messages
16,771
May as well have a thread on it

The funny thing is, both the NZ commentary team and the Australian commentary team seemed to think it was a fair try

There seems universal acceptance here though that it wasn't

Thoughts?
 
Johns Magic

Johns Magic

Referee
Messages
21,654
Personally I think it should be a knock-on, but then again I don't know what rule they're using for it today.
 
brendothejet

brendothejet

First Grade
Messages
7,998
the thing i liked best was that the ref played the advantage. Hel the game run until the decision could be reviewed.

That for my mind is how the video ref should be used, not the way we currently do where we stop things from happening, then have a look. I hate how a bloke gets tackled, or the ball is knocked on, we start packing a scrum or giving a penalty and then BAM, the video ref comes up with an inconclusive decision.
 
Big Pete

Big Pete

Referee
Messages
28,986
I thought it was a knock on watching it at the game and side on. I didn't see an intentional racking motion so to say it was a strip was very drastic IMO.
 
JoeD

JoeD

First Grade
Messages
7,056
The way the strip rule is enforced at the moment I thought looking at the replay it was a clear strip and therefore a try.
 
Meth

Meth

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
34,744
Just a consequence of the lack of emphasis put on the attacking player's responsibility to hold on to the ball
 
W

watatank

Coach
Messages
14,009
I thought it was a loose carry. Yeah the player had the hand on the ball but I don't think he went to strip it. There should be a lot more emphasis on ball security. I'm not unhappy with the decision though, it's a tough one to make.
 
Pierced Soul

Pierced Soul

First Grade
Messages
9,202
no one understands the stripping laws (including me).

i've seen plenty of those in the nrl called knock on. plenty of times the rationale (i think) used is that even though it was played at it's still gone forward off the ball carrier.

personally i dont have a problem with it an di'd love to see this be the decision made in the nrl consistently. of course i'd love to see the stripping rule revoked and it be on the onus of the ball carrier to hold the thing
 
Noa

Noa

First Grade
Messages
9,029
The tackler went for the classic bet-each-way, make it look like a tackle when your really going for the strip.


T-R-Y.
 
R

rlo

Juniors
Messages
76
I thought it was 50/50. When I first saw it, Laffranchi's hand was hidden, so when the ball went forward I simply thought Benji knocked it.

It seemed fair enough. This probably had the greatest amount of luck and crucial refereeing calls go their way i.e. it was the most 50/50 decision in the match, more than the Lockyer no-try, or the penaltry try
 
R

RL1908

Bench
Messages
2,717
The NRL referees tend to treat every lost possession as a knock-forward.

Issues such as "loose carry" and "unintentionally playing at the ball" etc. are just rubbish.

I thought the ruling on Saturday night was a breath of fresh air, and some sensible application of the original intent of the rule (which was to stop players deliberately knocking the ball forward as in Aust rules).

"Knocking" does not equal "dropping" (otherwise how on earth can a player legally ever take a drop kick? i.e. the drop the ball from the hands, and then kick it the instant it rises back up from the ground.)

The question we need to ask in these situations such as Marshall's is: "Did the attacking player knock the ball forward with either his hand or forearm, or not at all?"

What action did Marshall take to knock the ball forward? A: None. He did nothing at all.

There is no such thing in the rule book as a "loose carry".

I'd much rather the decision we saw on Saturday night than the rubbish served up in the NRL every week where dropped passes (often behind a player) are ruled as a knock on.

Even worse, are the letting go of instances like Brett Stewart in his try against Penrith (and earlier one against Wests Tigers a few years back) where he clearly knocked/tapped the ball forward to get possession of it - and heaps of other instances of defenders attempting intercepts and defenders deliberately knocking the ball down in mid-flight - these are what the knock forward rule is meant to stop, not what happened on Saturday night where the attacker did nothing wrong (and having a "loose carry" is not doing something wrong).
 
R

RL1908

Bench
Messages
2,717
Pierced Soul said:
i've seen plenty of those in the nrl called knock on. plenty of times the rationale (i think) used is that even though it was played at it's still gone forward off the ball carrier.
Click to expand...

That is indeed the problem. Just because the ball touched the attacker as it left his possession, he didn't "Knock" it forward.

A "knock" is a deliberate movement of your hand/arm.

In RL we have come to treat "knock" and "drop" and "touch" and "rebound" as the same thing - but they arent.

If you see games in the 1960s there is a heap of dropped ball and no one doing anything about it - because the player did not "knock" the ball.
 
no name

no name

Coach
Messages
19,230
RL1908 said:
The NRL referees tend to treat every lost possession as a knock-forward.

Issues such as "loose carry" and "unintentionally playing at the ball" etc. are just rubbish.

I thought the ruling on Saturday night was a breath of fresh air, and some sensible application of the original intent of the rule (which was to stop players deliberately knocking the ball forward as in Aust rules).

"Knocking" does not equal "dropping" (otherwise how on earth can a player legally ever take a drop kick? i.e. the drop the ball from the hands, and then kick it the instant it rises back up from the ground.)

The question we need to ask in these situations such as Marshall's is: "Did the attacking player knock the ball forward with either his hand or forearm, or not at all?"

What action did Marshall take to knock the ball forward? A: None. He did nothing at all.

There is no such thing in the rule book as a "loose carry".

I'd much rather the decision we saw on Saturday night than the rubbish served up in the NRL every week where dropped passes (often behind a player) are ruled as a knock on.

Even worse, are the letting go of instances like Brett Stewart in his try against Penrith (and earlier one against Wests Tigers a few years back) where he clearly knocked/tapped the ball forward to get possession of it - and heaps of other instances of defenders attempting intercepts and defenders deliberately knocking the ball down in mid-flight - these are what the knock forward rule is meant to stop, not what happened on Saturday night where the attacker did nothing wrong (and having a "loose carry" is not doing something wrong).
Click to expand...
As he loses control he gets a touch on it

So any time a player with a 'loose carry' gets hit in the arm region and drops the ball it is play on? That is when the game will become like Aussie Rules
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Top