Video Refs at it again

[Manu Vatuvei]

http://www.nrl.com/official-view-slater-binning-the-right-call/tabid/10874/newsid/67422/default.aspx

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

Presuming you feel just a little silly now.

As do I. Very surprised.

 

[Iafeta]

The pic on your own clip attila shows Mara's hand on the ball while Leulia's fingers are outstretched grabbing at the ball. Mara had possession, end of story really.

 

[Penrose Warrior]

Most geniused thread, ever. Both Leilua and Mara grounded the ball simultaneously. As such the BotD goes to the attacking team.

As simple a decision as they come, because the rule is clear cut. Exactly how someone can dispute the footage on this one boggles the mind.

It boggles the mind how you ever posted this.

 

[Meth]

Geez, some Roosters fans have a 'poor me' complex.

 

[Rebel]

We need to start a lol@roosters thread based on this game alone.

 

[Danish]

so Harrigan, the bloke who awarded Gasnier's famous bounce try, Anasta's famous "soward stripped the ball with his thigh" try, and Dean Young's "Well... he clearly lost it into Aubusson but the scores a blow out anyway" try has said that the BJ try was the wrong call....

I guess he must be correct then :sarcasm:

Harrigan was the idiot who couldn't stop telling us how a player doesn't even need to be in control of the ball to score a try, simply to have no separation (or if there is separation, at least make it spectacular). Now suddenly the scorer needs to be in possession?

 

[Penrose Warrior]

Only if the other team isn't in posession...

 

[Danish]

He wasn't in possession, He had the ball wedged between his wrist and stomach, only really grabbing hold of it after they both hit the ground.

 

[beave]

The explanation of the Linnett no try............... sigh.

 

[Izz]

Is downward pressure necessary anymore, or is it just no separation?

 

[hitman82]

Is downward pressure necessary anymore, or is it just no separation?

Can you have one without the other, by the laws pf physics? Pretty sure you can not.

If the ball is touching the ground, and a players' finger, regardless of how shallow the angle, this finger is exerting a force upon the ball and therefore the ground. And vice versa...

 

[Big Tim]

"control" hasnt been in the definition for years - thank bill harrigan for that. old school followers would talk about control in grounding, now it's "separation", if there's no separation and a finger is sliding off a ball coming into contact with the ground thats seen as good enough




is the case you're talking about i dont think either has clear possession of the ball, hence why it would have been simultaneous.

personally i'd love to see control used as the yardstick

Control should be back, and it seems in some respect it is.

Linnett scored a try, based on the current ruling. He touched the ball, whilst it was on the ground in the in-goal before or at the same time Uate did.

As a RL fan, I cant see how it should be a try though. Linnett got the backs of 2-3 fingers on the ball, Uate got his whole palm to it and swiped it dead.

The ruling that Uate 'grounded' it is wrong and confusing. He wasnt attempting to ground it, so why should it be grounded if he touches it whilst it is on the ground?

If a ball stops in the in-goal, and a fullback picks it up when no-one else is around, hasnt he just grounded it, forcing a drop-out, if the same ruling is applied??

 

[Sam_the_man]

Refs coach Stuart Raper says the Leilua try shouldn't have been awarded.

http://www.nrl.com/official-view-slater-binning-the-right-call/tabid/10874/newsid/67422/default.aspx

What were your thoughts on Joseph Leilua's try for the Roosters against the Warriors? Did he and the Warriors defender both ground the ball simultaneously?

This is probably the toughest call we have had all year. After looking at it many times in slow motion and all the different angles, we believe the decision to award a try was wrong. We don’t believe Leilua had possession of the ball, he did get his hand on the ball, but the Warriors’ player grounds it with his arm. We believe that it was the wrong call. It should have been a line dropout.

http://www.nrl.com/Video/2012SmartReplay/tabid/11110/Default.aspx?roundid=425&matchid=2384&videoquality=1&type=try&period=1&time=1252

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

He wasn't in possession, He had the ball wedged between his wrist and stomach

How is that not "in possession"?

You don't need to have 2 hands on the ball at 10 and 2 for textbook ball-handling precision (yes, something I'm an expert in, lololol). If you've got the ball wedged in tight to your body some bludger can't come along and slap at it and get awarded a try. I would've thought this was pretty clear.

 

[Tommy Smith]

so Harrigan, the bloke who awarded Gasnier's famous bounce try, Anasta's famous "soward stripped the ball with his thigh" try, and Dean Young's "Well... he clearly lost it into Aubusson but the scores a blow out anyway" try has said that the BJ try was the wrong call....

I guess he must be correct then :sarcasm:

Harrigan was the idiot who couldn't stop telling us how a player doesn't even need to be in control of the ball to score a try, simply to have no separation (or if there is separation, at least make it spectacular). Now suddenly the scorer needs to be in possession?

But, but, but, it suits their argument so all of a sudden the referees bosses are geniuses.

Please stop talking sense, Danish. It offends certain people on here.

 

[Penrose Warrior]

But, but, but, it suits their argument so all of a sudden the referees bosses are geniuses.

Please stop talking sense, Danish. It offends certain people on here.

Haha of course it suits our argument, it's exactly the same thing we said. Harrigan is far from a genius but he gets it right some of the time. Now is one of them.

It's hard to take credence from fans of a side who lost. If tables were turned, you'd be humming a different tune.

 

[Tommy Smith]

Haha of course it suits our argument, it's exactly the same thing we said. Harrigan is far from a genius but he gets it right some of the time. Now is one of them.

It's hard to take credence from fans of a side who lost. If tables were turned, you'd be humming a different tune.

No i wouldn't.

That try from either last year or the year before you scored against us in NZ...the one that many Roosters fans forever whinge about being grounded on the dead ball line; to me that was a fair try. I had no problem with it and we lost the game as a result.

This one was IMO also the correct call. Ive known about simultaneuos grounding since forever and they both grounf the ball at the same time. Pretty simply. And had the situation been reversed i wouldnt have had a problem. The Shaun Johnson try was the correct cal as well...in fact it shouldnt have even been BotD...it was a clear try.

 

[Iafeta]

so Harrigan, the bloke who awarded Gasnier's famous bounce try, Anasta's famous "soward stripped the ball with his thigh" try, and Dean Young's "Well... he clearly lost it into Aubusson but the scores a blow out anyway" try has said that the BJ try was the wrong call....

I guess he must be correct then :sarcasm:

Harrigan was the idiot who couldn't stop telling us how a player doesn't even need to be in control of the ball to score a try, simply to have no separation (or if there is separation, at least make it spectacular). Now suddenly the scorer needs to be in possession?

Stuart Raper.

Nothing to do with the scorer needing to be in possession. However, if someone from the other team has possession, you can't then simultaneously ground it. Otherwise, fullbacks that try to get back in field from a kick will have to ensure the ball is off the ground, otherwise teams would deliberately set them up for simultaneously groundings in goal.

 

[Geohood]

Stuart Raper.

Nothing to do with the scorer needing to be in possession. However, if someone from the other team has possession, you can't then simultaneously ground it. Otherwise, fullbacks that try to get back in field from a kick will have to ensure the ball is off the ground, otherwise teams would deliberately set them up for simultaneously groundings in goal.

I don't think Mara had possession in the same way a fullback would when trying to get back in the field of play. You could argue that they both had as much possession of the ball as each other until the ball hit the ground.