Worst Try In The History Of Origin

[Keffola]

GI may not have adjusted immediately to the dislodged ball, but he was still in the act of attempting to score a try? How can you not be playing at the ball when you are still in the motion of trying to put the ball down?

 

[Karl]

Wrong.

He was playing at the ball for the whole play. He didn’t somehow stop playing at the ball as you suggest.

IT WAS A KNOCK ON.

This is where you're wrong.

He HAD the ball. It was in his hands. He was about to place it over the line.

THEN Farah kicked it loose (and in so doing kicked it into GI's forearm), THEN GI dived on it. If he had knocked it on as he attempted to ground the ball THEN that would be a knock on.

This tiny fraction of a second where it came off Farahs boot and hit GI's arm is all part of the action of knocking the ball loose.

OK - using one of your examples - Lets say Farah is running at GI and attempts a chip kick over GI's head, but kicks it into GI's arm (who doesn't play at it, just has it kicked into him) and it bounces forward off GI and back over Farah's head where GI runs through, gathers the ball and scores.

Is that a knock on?

 

[Springs]

OK - this once I will deal with you needless attempts to give other examples that are not relevant.



No - he was chasing a bouncing ball and trying to catch it. If he gets a bad bounce and knocks it forward, it's a knock on.

In this case Gi already HAS the ball in his hands, then ANOTHER PERSON kicked it loose.

You see the difference? Ok. Good.

No no it comes back and hits his arm then goes forward, he didn't play at it with his arm, only his hands....:roll:

It's not about who kicks it loose you fool, it's about playing at the ball, but don't worry just ignore the point and go off on your own stupid tangent. If the ball was bouncing on the ground, Inglis goes to ground it then it bounces up hits his arm then goes forward I'm guessing he
s not playing at it under your logic? Because if the ball unexpectedly bounces higher how is he supposed to react in time? He thinks it's still on the ground! He's not playing at the ball when it hits his arm!

It's not about reaction time you dope. He was playing at the ball. It's not like he's standing there and someone kicks the ball into his head from behind. He was trying to ground the damn thing for f**k's sake! I understand exactly what you are saying but it is irrelevant! In no game on earth do the rules take into account 1000ths of a second reaction time, it's completely ridiculous to even bring that up in conversation. Do you expect the referees to go upstairs and say 'I just want to check whether in that time his brain could have reacted to the ball quick enough to play at it'? And then Gus can be up at the box saying 'well that's 0.04 seconds, his eye aren't on the ball when it hits his hand, he still thinks the Bulldogs player has it, I don't think we can definitely say his brain has reacted in time to make a play at the ball, benefit of the doubt!'

You are the one who can't understand how stupid your argument is in context of a rugby league game. In 105 years, all referees would have either said 'knock on' or 'knocked out then knocked on'.

 

[Valheru]

Are you really trying to suggest GI played at that ball AFTER Farah kicked it out of GI's hands and into GI's forearm?

Of course he did. He was trying to score a try, unless you are suggesting a try can be scored without playing at the ball?

 

[simostorm]

Is it illegal to delibrately kick the ball from a players hand if they are trying to ground the footy?

i thought it was..

which means.. even if Inglis had not of ground the footy.. because Farah kicked it out while he was in posession would it have been awarded a penalty try?

 

[Big Pete]

Upon further reflection I don't think anybody has any idea of what the rule truly is.

Is Farah allowed to lead in with his boot to prevent a try?

And when the ball is dislodged from Farah's boot when is it considered live?

If nothing else, at least we'll get some clarity here.

For the time being we're just spinning our wheels. Can understand the frustration, it wasn't the best way to finish the game, so we'll just wait to see if that frustration was justified.

 

[Springs]

GI may not have adjusted immediately to the dislodged ball, but he was still in the act of attempting to score a try? How can you not be playing at the ball when you are still in the motion of trying to put the ball down?

Because Karl has NFI.

Lets say Farah is running at GI and attempts a chip kick over GI's head, but kicks it into GI's arm (who doesn't play at it, just has it kicked into him) and it bounces forward off GI and back over Farah's head where GI runs through, gathers the ball and scores.

In the spirit of your stupid answers it doesn't matter because GI is not in the motion of trying to ground the damn ball over the line!

Unless GI is standing with his back to Farah he would either be trying to tackle him or hinder the kick. If he was just standing there straight like an idiot and Farah kicked it into his arm and GI didn't move at all then it's debatable. However GI isn't at all times trying to ground the ball like he was in this play!!

A better example would be if Farah kicked it, Inglis went to catch it but it came off his arm instead. In that split second it left Farah's boot and hit his arm his brain couldn't possibly have registered in time to know where it would be so he can't have been playing at it! Just with his hands, not with his arm!

 

[gronkathon]

Well we will get some clarity until something similar happens again and the standards are changed and Bill justifies it to himself

 

[Karl]

No no it comes back and hits his arm then goes forward, he didn't play at it with his arm, only his hands....:roll:

It's not about who kicks it loose you fool, it's about playing at the ball, but don't worry just ignore the point and go off on your own stupid tangent. If the ball was bouncing on the ground, Inglis goes to ground it then it bounces up hits his arm then goes forward I'm guessing he
s not playing at it under your logic? Because if the ball unexpectedly bounces higher how is he supposed to react in time? He thinks it's still on the ground! He's not playing at the ball when it hits his arm!

It's not about reaction time you dope. He was playing at the ball. It's not like he's standing there and someone kicks the ball into his head from behind. He was trying to ground the damn thing for f**k's sake! I understand exactly what you are saying but it is irrelevant! In no game on earth do the rules take into account 1000ths of a second reaction time, it's completely ridiculous to even bring that up in conversation. Do you expect the referees to go upstairs and say 'I just want to check whether in that time his brain could have reacted to the ball quick enough to play at it'? And then Gus can be up at the box saying 'well that's 0.04 seconds, his eye aren't on the ball when it hits his hand, he still thinks the Bulldogs player has it, I don't think we can definitely say his brain has reacted in time to make a play at the ball, benefit of the doubt!'

You are the one who can't understand how stupid your argument is in context of a rugby league game. In 105 years, all referees would have either said 'knock on' or 'knocked out then knocked on'.

Re the bit in bold - once again - WHERE IS THE OTHER PERSON KICKING THE BALL OUT OF HIS HANDS? Your example is just a single person fumbling a ball. That is NOT WHAT HAPPENED. For the love of the baby jesus...


The underlined bit in italics - Refs consider INTENTION all the damn time! Playing at a ball requires intention you idiot. How could GI intend to play at the ball as it came off Farah's boot? Answer that.

 

[Karl]

Because Karl has NFI.



In the spirit of your stupid answers it doesn't matter because GI is not in the motion of trying to ground the damn ball over the line!

Unless GI is standing with his back to Farah he would either be trying to tackle him or hinder the kick. If he was just standing there straight like an idiot and Farah kicked it into his arm and GI didn't move at all then it's debatable. However GI isn't at all times trying to ground the ball like he was in this play!!

A better example would be if Farah kicked it, Inglis went to catch it but it came off his arm instead. In that split second it left Farah's boot and hit his arm his brain couldn't possibly have registered in time to know where it would be so he can't have been playing at it! Just with his hands, not with his arm!

Answer the damn question - look at you squirm now.

GI is running at Farah to tackle him. That is not playing at the ball. Farah tries to chip kick over his head, but kicks it into GI. It bounces off GI's arm and back over Farah's head - Kick-Thump! Almost instantaneous impact from the boot. GI runs through and gathers the ball to score.

Try? Knock on?

The bit in bold is basically a charge down, which is NOT A KNOCK ON under the rules, specifically excluded. If you mean the ball was lobbed at him off Farrah's boot and he tried to actually catch it as it came to him (as opposed to charged it down) and knocked it on, its just a knock on. What a stupid example.

Its funny, you say I have no idea, but the video ref agrees with me and it looks like Harrigan agrees it was a try, even Stuart after the game was resigned to it being a try before he had time to get angry and ramped up by all the Blues faithful in their outrage and start telling fibs about fictitious conversations with Harrigan.

Maybe you're the one with NFI hey?

 

[Springs]

Upon further reflection I don't think anybody has any idea of what the rule truly is.

Is Farah allowed to lead in with his boot to prevent a try?

And when the ball is dislodged from Farah's boot when is it considered live?

If nothing else, at least we'll get some clarity here.

For the time being we're just spinning our wheels. Can understand the frustration, it wasn't the best way to finish the game, so we'll just wait to see if that frustration was justified.

The thing is, if Farah leading with the foot is illegal it's a penalty try, if leading with the foot is legal then it's a knock-on. The video ref has said what Farah did was fine, but Inglis didn't knock on, which is just crazy.

 

[Keffola]

Re the bit in bold - once again - WHERE IS THE OTHER PERSON KICKING THE BALL OUT OF HIS HANDS? Your example is just a single person fumbling a ball. That is NOT WHAT HAPPENED. For the love of the baby jesus...


The underlined bit in italics - Refs consider INTENTION all the damn time! Playing at a ball requires intention you idiot. How could GI intend to play at the ball as it came off Farah's boot? Answer that.

When did GI's intention change from "trying to score a try"?

 

[Springs]

Answer the damn question - look at you squirm now.

GI is running at Farah to tackle him. That is not playing at the ball. Farah tries to chip kick over his head, but kicks it into GI. It bounces off GI's arm and back over Farah's head. GI runs through and gathers the ball to score.

Try? Knock on?

To tackle him huh? Knock on then. You should know that all actions to tackle a player are now considering playing at the ball, as seen when a player goes to pass it and it comes off a tackler's arm. Squirm huh? Na, I answered your questions quite easily.

The underlined bit in italics - Refs cPlaying at a ball requires intention you idiot. How could GI intend to play at the ball as it came off Farah's boot? Answer that.onsider INTENTION all the damn time!

Becausing he was INTENDING to GROUND it. That's PLAYING at it. Can you read? The capitals are the main part if you can't understand a simple f**king rule. The whole action until he gets up and goes to ground it again was an attempt to ground it, which means he was playing at it the whole time.
What was Inglis's intention? To ground the ball. That's playing at it. He was playing at the ball. It comes off his arm while he is playing at the ball. Rules say knock-on. Every reasonable fan says knock on. Any idiot who has seen a few games says knock on. Hampstead and Karl say try. :crazy:

 

[Springs]

He did NOT fumble it while trying to regather. Watch the video again.

It's kicked out of his hands (arguably illegally, but that's irrelevant). A hundredth of a second or less later it hits GI's forearm after traveling the distance of a few inches. It travels forward and hits the ground. GI applies downward pressure.

Where is this fumble while attempting to regather you speak of? His brain wouldn't have even registered that the ball was kicked out of his hands when it hit his arm. GI could not possible have played at it, attempted to regather it or anything else in that time. These are just facts. They aren't open to interpretation or argument.

Therefore, under the Rules, there can be no Knock On. Therefore there is a live, loose ball in the in goal. GI applies downward pressure. Try.

Oh and here's your stupid comment about how quickly the brain registers should be in the rules. So yeah, you did say crap about brain registry, I didn't make it up.

 

[Karl]

When did GI's intention change from "trying to score a try"?

Playing at the ball the First - GI saw a loose ball near the try line after it went to ground from the kick and picked it up. He was trying to ground the ball that he had in his hands. It was dislodged from his hands by Farah with a boot. It bounced clear.

Playing at the ball the Second - GI then went after the loose ball in goal and grounded it.

Try

 

[Springs]

Its funny, you say I have no idea, but the video ref agrees with me and it looks like Harrigan agrees it was a try, even Stuart after the game was resigned to it being a try before he had time to get angry and ramped up by all the Blues faithful in their outrage and start telling fibs about fictitious conversations with Harrigan.

Maybe you're the one with NFI hey?

Oh yes, video ref is always right. I'm sure you always take Harrigan's word too ay?

Yeah, cause I disagree with the video ref I have NFI. Just like most players and fans that disagree with a ton of ref calls every single game. :roll:

 

[betcats]

Upon further reflection I don't think anybody has any idea of what the rule truly is.

Is Farah allowed to lead in with his boot to prevent a try?

And when the ball is dislodged from Farah's boot when is it considered live?

If nothing else, at least we'll get some clarity here.

For the time being we're just spinning our wheels. Can understand the frustration, it wasn't the best way to finish the game, so we'll just wait to see if that frustration was justified.

Good post, that rule really needs clarification. If what Farah did is against the rules then it should of been a penalty try, But can anyone seriously say that it was worthy of a penalty try even if it was against the rules..?

If what Farah did is deemed legal(imo it should be) then its a knock on for all money.

 

[Karl]

To tackle him huh? Knock on then. You should know that all actions to tackle a player are now considering playing at the ball, as seen when a player goes to pass it and it comes off a tackler's arm. Squirm huh? Na, I answered your questions quite easily.

Whats your authority for that assertion? Show me in the rules, or somewhere else, where you're playing at the ball when someone kicks it into you as you attempt a tackle. Or give me verifiable examples. In any event, and this is where these examples are irrelevant, because this is not what happened with GI and Farah anyway.

And tell me something else, if the Try should have been a penalty try anyway because Farah kicked the ball loose, what is everyone so upset about?

 

[Big Pete]

Harrigan press conference on FoxSports

He says it's a try.

Farah is allowed to dislodge with boot.

But GI was deemed not to be playing at the ball. The contact from his fore-arm was just considered a rebound.

Journos are trying their best to twist this.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

Cue blue meltdown in 3....2....