Worst Try In The History Of Origin

[Hutty1986]

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

Even the big slow myth seemed a bit shocked at the try being awarded last night, tried to cover it up though

 

[Frank_Grimes]

You certainly would.

I said earlier in the thread that I'd be dirty if that decision went against my team. But I certainly wouldn't carry on like some of the whingers in here. Take my word for it if you want.

If not, well winners are grinners.

 

[Big Pete]

They need to ban players using their feet to prevent a try, period.

 

[betcats]

I said earlier in the thread that I'd be dirty if that decision went against my team. But I certainly wouldn't carry on like some of the whingers in here. Take my word for it if you want.

If not, well winners are grinners.

I'll give you the benefit Grimesy, but I think the out cry would be very similar from the queensland fans if the situation was reversed.

 

[aarondoyle]

Even as a Queenslander I reckon it's a dodgy call.

 

[Walt Flanigan]

Harrigan Points The Finger at Barrett

BILL Harrigan has declared that the Greg Inglis try decision in last night’s Origin clash was correct while saying Trent Barrett misinterpreted him during a conversation he had with the Blues assistant coach post-match.

After the clash which NSW lost 18-10 Ricky Stuart told The Daily Telegraph that Harrigan admitted the Inglis try should never have been awarded by video referee Sean Hampstead.

He clarified his comments this morning saying he hadn’t spoken to Harrigan directly but that the information had came from a close source who he wasn’t willing to name.

“I trust the person who told me. He’s been a friend of mine for a long time and he wouldn’t have made it up,” Stuart said today.

At a press conference this afternoon, Harrigan said he had a conversation with Barrett after the match but never said Inglis hadn’t scored.

“What was said someone has interpreted a different way,” Harrigan said.

“I never said at anytime it wasn’t a try. Right throughout I said I would need to review the incident before I made a comment.

“It was a try. Robbie Farah puts his leg out to prevent the try from being scored. When the ball was dislodged it came off Inglis’ forearm and that’s a rebound and not a knock-on.”

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...-origin-game-one/story-e6frexv9-1226365591004



"That's a rebound and not a knock-on"


..........that'll do me.

 

[user_nat]

Plenty of times a winger will throw (or kick) the ball as they are going over the sideline. This ball rebounds off an opponent and into touch and is not ruled as being played at. Same thing.

 

[Karl]

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?

He didn't have any intention when the ball was kicked out if his hands into his forearm, he was still in the act of grounding it when it happened.

He changed from trying to ground a ball he held to chasing and grounding the ball after it was kicked and dislodged by Farah.

So the rules say a "KNOCK-ON means to knock the ball towards the opponents’ dead ball line with hand or arm, while playing at the ball." - Section 2 Glossary.

You don't play at the ball if its a:

REBOUND see Accidental Strike
RICHOCET see Accidental Strike

So what does Accidental Strike mean? ACCIDENTAL STRIKE when a ball strikes a player who makes no attempt to play at the ball.

So it all comes back to an attempt to play at a ball. I think its clear that GI did NOT play at the ball as it came off Farah's boot for the reasons I have set out already. It is a classic Accidental Strike. It was kicked into him before he could react.

Re your question - Thats harder to answer. I would say - Yes, thats a knock on. Even if he's a decoy runner he's still in the line and could receive the ball, he's playing at the ball, particularly in the eyes of the defending team. You're meant to believe he's playing at the ball, that's his purpose as a decoy runner.

I cannot find, however, a definitive meaning of "Playing at the ball" - so I'm giving it it's natural meaning and looking at commentary I have seen from Refs based on other incidents where Intent is brought into it etc.

 

[firechild]

Plenty of times a winger will throw (or kick) the ball as they are going over the sideline. This ball rebounds off an opponent and into touch and is not ruled as being played at. Same thing.

Not the same thing at all. Inglis was attempting to score a try, he was making a play at the ball. In your example the player is making a play at the opposing player, not the ball. Very different situations.

 

[Walt Flanigan]

Not the same thing at all. Inglis was attempting to score a try, he was making a play at the ball. In your example the player is making a play at the opposing player, not the ball. Very different situations.

This.

 

[Karl]

“It was a try. Robbie Farah puts his leg out to prevent the try from being scored. When the ball was dislodged it came off Inglis’ forearm and that’s a rebound and not a knock-on.”

That is what Harrigan said as well.

Seems pretty clear to me.

The people who are saying it is a knock on are misinterpreting the "playing at the ball" issue and saying he played at the ball when Farah kicked it loose because he had been attempting to score a try at the time. That is incorrect.

 

[no name]

It's funny how Harrigan knows Farah definitely played at it but Inglis definitely didn't.
As soon as you lose the ball the natural reaction is to try and get it back.
Inglis' arms come together after it comes loose which suggest he is attempted to grab it back.

 

[Someone]

They need to ban players using their feet to prevent a try, period.

so no more billy slater, hes banned for life?

 

[user_nat]

Not the same thing at all. Inglis was attempting to score a try, he was making a play at the ball. In your example the player is making a play at the opposing player, not the ball. Very different situations.

Yeah, I suppose that makes the analogy not really work out.

Point was, just like a player that accidentally knocks the ball over the sideline has no ability to stop that happening, Inglis has no ability to stop the ball rebounding off him after it was kicked out of his grasp.

Hence not played at.

I also don't think anyone is ever going to convince anyone of anything. It's like debating religion.

 

[Keffola]

He didn't have any intention when the ball was kicked out if his hands into his forearm, he was still in the act of grounding it when it happened.

He changed from trying to ground a ball he held to chasing and grounding the ball after it was kicked and dislodged by Farah.

So the rules say a "KNOCK-ON means to knock the ball towards the opponents’ dead ball line with hand or arm, while playing at the ball." - Section 2 Glossary.

You don't play at the ball if its a:

REBOUND see Accidental Strike
RICHOCET see Accidental Strike

So what does Accidental Strike mean? ACCIDENTAL STRIKE when a ball strikes a player who makes no attempt to play at the ball.

So it all comes back to an attempt to play at a ball. I think its clear that GI did NOT play at the ball as it came off Farah's boot for the reasons I have set out already. It is a classic Accidental Strike. It was kicked into him before he could react.

Re your question - Thats harder to answer. I would say - Yes, thats a knock on. Even if he's a decoy runner he's still in the line and could receive the ball, he's playing at the ball, particularly in the eyes of the defending team. You're meant to believe he's playing at the ball, that's his purpose as a decoy runner.

I cannot find, however, a definitive meaning of "Playing at the ball" - so I'm giving it it's natural meaning and looking at commentary I have seen from Refs based on other incidents where Intent is brought into it etc.

My contention is that as he was still in the act of grounding the ball when the ball bounced off his arm then he is still in fact "playing at the ball"

This is just my opinion, but I can't see how Ingli' thought process can go from "score the try" to "enter a state of zen like thoughtlessness" and then reset to "score the try"

 

[Valheru]

He didn't have any intention when the ball was kicked out if his hands into his forearm, he was still in the act of grounding it when it happened.

He changed from trying to ground a ball he held to chasing and grounding the ball after it was kicked and dislodged by Farah.

So the rules say a "KNOCK-ON means to knock the ball towards the opponents’ dead ball line with hand or arm, while playing at the ball." - Section 2 Glossary.

You don't play at the ball if its a:

REBOUND see Accidental Strike
RICHOCET see Accidental Strike

So what does Accidental Strike mean? ACCIDENTAL STRIKE when a ball strikes a player who makes no attempt to play at the ball.

So it all comes back to an attempt to play at a ball. I think its clear that GI did NOT play at the ball as it came off Farah's boot for the reasons I have set out already. It is a classic Accidental Strike. It was kicked into him before he could react.

Re your question - Thats harder to answer. I would say - Yes, thats a knock on. Even if he's a decoy runner he's still in the line and could receive the ball, he's playing at the ball, particularly in the eyes of the defending team. You're meant to believe he's playing at the ball, that's his purpose as a decoy runner.

I cannot find, however, a definitive meaning of "Playing at the ball" - so I'm giving it it's natural meaning and looking at commentary I have seen from Refs based on other incidents where Intent is brought into it etc.

Lol this just keeps getting better.

Now you claim that Inglis had an intention of playing at the ball right up until he dropped it on Farah’s boot at which point his whole nervous system shut down and he was devoid of thought. After it hit his forearm his brain woke up and reapplied the intention to play at the ball.

You are an A grade moron.

His intent was to score a try, at no stage did that intention change. Clear knock on... twice.

 

[Walt Flanigan]

That is what Harrigan said as well.

That's because what you quoted was a quote from Harrigan himself.

 

[cyberdj]

History book says 'try awarded'. Game has finished and result won't change.

Ffs some ppl on here must have a cubic meter of sand in their vaginas

 

[firechild]

I also don't think anyone is ever going to convince anyone of anything. It's like debating religion.

That probably sums it all up quite well.

 

[beave]

No matter which decision was made with that incident last night, the VR was going to cop a pasting from either side of the border. I would have hated to have been in his position. NSW forwards rolled QLDs deluxe for most of the game, I would be filthy at Carney or whoever it was who made that decision to kick for penalty goal, QLD were on the back foot at the time, they needed to go for the jugular. If NSW score there I reckon they probably go on to win, but we'll never know. Blaming that one incident whilst is easy as it was late in the game and directly led to points, there were enough stupid incidents throughout the game that NSW can also blame their own players for the loss as well. Hayne falling asleep while Bird sucked in 2 defenders was another cringe worthy offence, I know Hayne is not a winger and probably is not all that familiar with Birds game, but that was inexcusable, i reckon he scores if he takes that pass albeit with Slater to beat.