Worst Try In The History Of Origin

[Big Pete]

Only person Harrigan spoke to was Barrett.

Sounds like Chinese Whispers.

 

[Hutty1986]

It's the biggest game of the year so far, did you honestly think Hollywood wouldn't back his ref?

 

[gronkathon]

LOL.

Classic Billy.

 

[Big Pete]

Yet your brigade were quick to quote a second hand source to justify your whinging.

Can't have it both ways.

 

[Someone]

classic rugby league horseshit.

try or no try its a disgrace.

why dont we just change the shape of the field to an oval and play AFL ffs..

 

[Ladmate]

Karl you are the biggest idiot on here. You talk about reflexes, but Inglis does not have reflexes fast enough (no one does) to stop playing at the ball when it is dislodged. He's always trying to score the try, like you said no one can react fast enough.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Why doesn't someone in that press conference just say "Bill, you're a f**king idiot. It was no try. Every person with an ounce of sense on the planet would say it's no try. Stop talking shit and admit it". He's admitted NSW was robbed when Bird was penalised at a crucial time. He's admitted that Scott should have been sin binned. Now get real and admit that the salary cap cheating, wife beating New South Welshman in the Qld jersey knocked the f**king ball on.

 

[Karl]

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.

I did not say it should be in the rules. Jesus mate, get it right.

I said that INTENTION is relevant to the Rule which requires a player to play at a ball for it to be a knock on. Intention is a mental state that needs to be formed - there is an event, you process it, then you form the intention to do something, then your body responds. How could all of that have happened so quick? The kick and the touch of his forearm is basically instantaneous.

If there is no intention, there is no playing at the ball, and theres no knock on.

 

[firechild]

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.

It's now in the Official View on nrl.com

The stupid thing is, if someone is making an attempt to score a try, how can they be deemed to not be playing at the ball? Not playing at the ball is if a ball is kicked into you. Anyone who makes contact with the ball in an attempt to make a tackle is automatically deemed to be playing at the ball, surely attempting to score a try is making a more obvious play at the ball than making a tackle.

 

[Keffola]

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

So what were his intentions when the ball bounced off his wrist/arm? Are you saying he didn't have any intention at all? That it was all too fast for him to react?

If that is the case, and it was all too fast for him to react, then how was he able to change his intention from his "first" attempt at playing the ball?

And a question regarding your take of interpretation of intention and "playing at the ball". Halfback throws a pass at his decoy runner who had no idea the ball was coming. He made no attempt at catching the ball. Ball bounces off his hands into the in goal and he follows through and scores. Is that a knock on?

 

[betcats]

What a crock of shit. f**k you Hollywood.

 

[Valheru]

I did not say it should be in the rules. Jesus mate, get it right.

I said that INTENTION is relevant to the Rule which requires a player to play at a ball for it to be a knock on. Intention is a mental state that needs to be formed - there is an event, you process it, then you form the intention to do something, then your body responds. How could all of that have happened so quick? The kick and the touch of his forearm is basically instantaneous.

If there is no intention, there is no playing at the ball, and theres no knock on.

This will just about do me. You are now trying to claim that GI didn’t have any intention of scoring a try until after it hit his forearm at which stage his brain finally processed his thoughts thus forcing him to play at the ball.

Your IQ cannot be above 36.

I can imagine it now... “referee, my brain didn’t have enough time to process the fact that the ball was coming to me so therefore I had no intention at the time of catching/playing at it.”

 

[Valheru]

And a question regarding your take of interpretation of intention and "playing at the ball". Halfback throws a pass at his decoy runner who had no idea the ball was coming. He made no attempt at catching the ball. Ball bounces off his hands into the in goal and he follows through and scores. Is that a knock on?

Depends how dumb the decoy runner is. GI gets a full 60 seconds warning before he is deemed to have intention to play at the ball :crazy:

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Just imagine if Queensland had been robbed by a decision like this. There would be riots and a royal commission. But because this decision helped them win the hypocriticlal merkins are coming up with all the bullshit under the sun to justify it. Hope like hell they get robbed blind like that in game two.

 

[betcats]

Big Mals head would explode quicker then you can say "conspiracy theory".

 

[GongPanther]

To be brutally honest,the vid ref has to go and let the refs call it as they see it.

Lets face it,the reason and the ONLY reason in why we have this video ref is so it brings attention to the advert that flashes on the big screen,nothing more,nothing less as it has absolutely nothing to do wether a try is a try or not.

The dud calls without the vid refs will even out in the long run anyway.

 

[Springs]

This will just about do me. You are now trying to claim that GI didn’t have any intention of scoring a try until after it hit his forearm at which stage his brain finally processed his thoughts thus forcing him to play at the ball.

Your IQ cannot be above 36.

I can imagine it now... “referee, my brain didn’t have enough time to process the fact that the ball was coming to me so therefore I had no intention at the time of catching/playing at it.”

:lol:

Karl's bullshit is almost too ridiculous to believe.

If Farah is allowed to put his foot there like Bill said then it is poor security on Inglis's part and a knock on. Coming off his arm afterwards is irrelevant although it should also be considered a knock on because it's in the same act.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

Just imagine if Queensland had been robbed by a decision like this. There would be riots and a royal commission. But because this decision helped them win the hypocriticlal merkins are coming up with all the bullshit under the sun to justify it. Hope like hell they get robbed blind like that in game two.

:lol:

Cry more.

 

[GongPanther]

@ East Coast Tiger.

No,I hope nsw win the second game so it goes to Lang(er) Park,THEN have the refs calls go against them,then watch the riots start after they get robbed of a win.

 

[betcats]

:lol:

Cry more.

You certainly would.