When is a bomb defused?

[Ulysseus]

When the red wire is cut.

Unless Hollywood has been lying.

They kind of do lie a bit.
Depending on the explosive and initiation method snapping the wire may set it off, det cord shouldn't go off, but a dedicated "detonator" (non electric) running into a "booster" may do so if you reef the line too quickly.
Then again I have seen "boosters" that are said to only be able to withstand a certain amount of force before they go be run over by a couple of hundred tonne and not go off.................
Weird.

 

[Ulysseus]

As an aside, did Lawrence knock the ball into the Easts player during the dalliance in the air?

 

[alien]

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.

but there are always 1-on-1 strips after a player has caught the ball (from a pass)

 

[alien]

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.

in the rule book, in regards to getting a 20 metre re-start, in section 8, 2 (c) it states: "a defending player, in his in-goal, takes a kick in general play from an opponent on the full."

http://www.nrl.com/portals/nrl/RadEditor/Documents/NRL Rules book 2013FINAL.pdf

it says nothing about the ball can only be taken whilst the player is touching the ground sir

 

[alien]

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

that's because if he catches it there, it's play on and he can be tackled, but if it's caught in-goal, it's a 20m restart straight away

 

[Canard]

Why do people continue this Gould misnomer that the in goal has the same rules as the general field of play.

 

[IFR33K]

Can't believe the commentators were calling that a try.

The ball was caught by the roosters player. CL only steals the ball one on one once they crash and hit the ground. Surely by then the play is dead and a 20 metre restart is the only option.

 

[Sunshine Coast Tiger]

Can't believe the commentators were calling that a try.

The ball was caught by the roosters player. CL only steals the ball one on one once they crash and hit the ground. Surely by then the play is dead and a 20 metre restart is the only option.

Might want to look at the replay again. Both players have their hand on the ball in the air before any players feet fully hit the ground. For mine they rule should be changed to allow that to be a try. It should read you a defender has caught a bomb when he has full control when both feet hit the ground. It should allow for a ball to be contested in the air as it was. If the rule doesn't say that is a fair try the rule is wrong and should be changed.

 

[alien]

Might want to look at the replay again. Both players have their hand on the ball in the air before any players feet fully hit the ground. For mine they rule should be changed to allow that to be a try. It should read you a defender has caught a bomb when he has full control when both feet hit the ground. It should allow for a ball to be contested in the air as it was. If the rule doesn't say that is a fair try the rule is wrong and should be changed.

but you CAN have control of the ball before you land, and the roosters player got his hands to the ball first. i can't believe how many people are furious of the decision. it seems a bit desperate

 

[Sunshine Coast Tiger]

but you CAN have control of the ball before you land, and the roosters player got his hands to the ball first. i can't believe how many people are furious of the decision. it seems a bit desperate

We were flogged by a much better side. For mine a ball in the air should be fair game one on one. Lawrence had enough of that ball before the Roosters players feet hit the ground. You can't say he caught it in the air and it can't be contested in the air, gives far too much advantage to a defending side not to allow for that to be a contested ball, especially as Lawrence had enough of the ball in the air before either players feet hit the ground. If that rule allows that as fair catch than it should be changed like the corner post rule was changed, you should be able to contest a ball in the air one on one.

 

[Card Shark]

in the rule book, in regards to getting a 20 metre re-start, in section 8, 2 (c) it states: "a defending player, in his in-goal, takes a kick in general play from an opponent on the full."

http://www.nrl.com/portals/nrl/RadEditor/Documents/NRL Rules book 2013FINAL.pdf

it says nothing about the ball can only be taken whilst the player is touching the ground sir

If that's all the rule says, it was poorly interpreted imo. The attacking player was going for the ball & wanted it more than the defender.

If Lawrence didn't compete for the ball & Aubusson catches it in the air but drops it as he lands, is that fair game for Lawrence to dive on - I think it is.

As I said before, it's not AFL - surely it's not "caught" until defender has fully landed & has complete control of the ball. I don't think he'd landed & he certainly didn't have control of the ball as Lawrence also had a grip on it.

In the end, I can sort of see why the video ref didn't give it (mostly cause the on field ref made a hasty no-try call) but I wish they would use some common sense sometimes because they are dumb as a rule.

 

[skeepe]

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.

So much wrong. As long as they jump from the on-goal, it doesn't matter where they land. They can land over the dead ball line and it will still be a 20 metre restart.

Under the rules, it was a definite no try. Not sure why anyone would think otherwise.

 

[Bandwagon]

If that's all the rule says, it was poorly interpreted imo. The attacking player was going for the ball & wanted it more than the defender.

If Lawrence didn't compete for the ball & Aubusson catches it in the air but drops it as he lands, is that fair game for Lawrence to dive on - I think it is.

As I said before, it's not AFL - surely it's not "caught" until defender has fully landed & has complete control of the ball. I don't think he'd landed & he certainly didn't have control of the ball as Lawrence also had a grip on it.

In the end, I can sort of see why the video ref didn't give it (mostly cause the on field ref made a hasty no-try call) but I wish they would use some common sense sometimes because they are dumb as a rule.

Yeah, pretty much, it's not just about the catch, the player defusing the bomb must have control.

If he hit's the ground and drops it, regardless of how good he looks in the air, he's lost control.

If Lawrence simply knocks the ball out of his hands mid air, rather than stealing it, it's either a knock on, or play on. We see that happen week in week out.

Why should contesting for and stealing the ball be treated any differently?

 

[IFR33K]

The roosters player caught the ball first. Lawrence quickly wraps his hands around the ball but it was in the possession of the roosters player. It's not till they are on the ground that CL seizes possession. The ball was already caught by the roosters player. He doesn't have to do anything else to be awarded a 20 meter tap. Why is it so hard to comprehend????

 

[East Coast Tiger]

He did have control of it.

Then it was stripped.

But once he had control that's all is required for a 20m restart.

The question is more about whether Lawrence had a claim on the ball simultaneously, but even those claiming try don't seem convinced of that. In the old days the rule, or at least the interpretation, was that once the ball was on a player's chest it was his ball. On that basis it certainly looked like Aubusson had possession before it was stripped and therefore see above.

 

[Front-Rower]

He only had control of it in the slow mo replay for what seemed to be acceptable amount of time. The contest for the ball was not over.

What happens if the roosters player catches it in mid air then drops it when he hits the ground. It's play on or goal line drop if it's knocked forward.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

But he didn't drop it. He caught it and had it stripped. In the field of play its tigers ball. In the in goal it's not.

 

[POPEYE]

If we're not sure the referee can't be expected to be sure so no try . . . doesn't change the fact that these two referees are competitive over reactive game killers

 

[Sunshine Coast Tiger]

My point is if the rule says that was a fair catch it should be changed. Lawrence should have every right to go for that ball in a contest one on one in the air. It should be a live ball until one player has landed with both feet on the ground and in full possession. It was great play by Lawrence who was only going for the ball not the man and it went unrewarded. The NRL change so many rules, if under the current rules that is not a try the rule should be changed to make that a try in the future.

 

[gronkathon]

That gimpy useless prat doesn't deserve a try regardless so f**k him. No try