When is a bomb defused?

[TheDalek079]

At what point is a bomb defused?

 

[East Coast Tiger]

When the red wire is cut.

Unless Hollywood has been lying.

 

[alien]

is this about the one where chris lawrence stripped it one on one??? the roosters player already caught it in-goal, which means it's automatically a 20 metre restart. if it was not in the in-goal area then it would be play-on and if he got over the try line, a try.

 

[TheDalek079]

is this about the one where chris lawrence stripped it one on one??? the roosters player already caught it in-goal, which means it's automatically a 20 metre restart. if it was not in the in-goal area then it would be play-on and if he got over the try line, a try.

when though is it defused? as soon as Maubs catches it? should a foot land on the ground too?

 

[MacDougall]

is this about the one where chris lawrence stripped it one on one??? the roosters player already caught it in-goal, which means it's automatically a 20 metre restart. if it was not in the in-goal area then it would be play-on and if he got over the try line, a try.

Yeah but your opinion is invalid and wrong.

 

[juro]

I don't know the rule in rugby league, but I would consider it a bit like taking a catch in cricket. You need to be in control of your body as well as the ball. The catch is not taken until the player is on the ground and stopped. To me, the rule for catching the bomb should definitely include the player actually landing first. Otherwise, there is less chance for the other team to contest the bomb.

 

[MacDougall]

It's a try, obviously. If Maxwell hadn't have blown the pea too soon and waited he'd have awarded it on the ground, as it was he had to say no try or look like a peanut.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

It's only 'obvious' to those looking through one eye. I'm sure the rules do not stipulate a detailed definition of what constitutes a catch but by any other measure there was at least some evidence of a catch. So the decision is arguable at worst but can't be called wrong unless anyone can provide a rule or even instances of convention in which a catch was not ruled under the same circumstances.

 

[Ladmate]

If that's not a try the rule needs to be changed, because it's stupid.

 

[typicalfan]

It's only 'obvious' to those looking through one eye. I'm sure the rules do not stipulate a detailed definition of what constitutes a catch but by any other measure there was at least some evidence of a catch. So the decision is arguable at worst but can't be called wrong unless anyone can provide a rule or even instances of convention in which a catch was not ruled under the same circumstances.

What about how a catch in goal is determined by where the feet land. If that is the case you wouldn't be able to adjudicate until he landed which by then it was a contested possession.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Its not determined by where the feet land. It's where they jumped from.

 

[johns_reds]

I haven't seen it and only going off above posts... but if he caught it then was stripped, then he has been 'tackled' in air and a penalty?

 

[alien]

Yeah but your opinion is invalid and wrong.

my opinion is valid and correct!

 

[alien]

but if he caught it then was stripped, then he has been 'tackled' in air and a penalty?

exactly! the thing is he caught the ball and wasn't going to drop it, and only lost it because lawrence stripped it. it went to the video ref and he said no try too.

slap that hand away! no chicken tonight!

 

[Card Shark]

I don't know the rule in rugby league, but I would consider it a bit like taking a catch in cricket. You need to be in control of your body as well as the ball. The catch is not taken until the player is on the ground and stopped. To me, the rule for catching the bomb should definitely include the player actually landing first. Otherwise, there is less chance for the other team to contest the bomb.

Well said.

If you were a supreme athlete who jumped 4 foot off the ground to catch it, would it still be a catch if you hit the ground & dropped it.

Not AFL. Bomb not mark.

 

[Card Shark]

exactly! the thing is he caught the ball and wasn't going to drop it, and only lost it because lawrence stripped it. it went to the video ref and he said no try too.

slap that hand away! no chicken tonight!

If he "catches" it 1m in the field of play & it was stripped in identical circumstances, it's play on.

If Aubusson had caught it...he would've had enough control that it wasn't stripped between the top of his leap to the bottom.

 

[lafai]

When ISIS says so

 

[Danish]

Isn't attempting to strip the ball considered a tackle of sorts? It is at the very least playing at the man as opposed to competing for a lose ball. Can't do either of those on a defender In the air

 

[Card Shark]

He was going for a bomb & took it out of the defender's hands as they both came to the ground.

Common sense says try...video ref says no try.

 

[Ulysseus]

It looked as if - during the in air contest - Lawrence actually had the ball clutched to HIS chest as opposed to the Roosters player.
I would say try but I don't support either team.
Given the score at the time I don't think this was going to change the game.