Worst Try In The History Of Origin

[Springs]

He is trying to score a try. He is playing at it. Same as when a player is diving for the ball and then has it hit or kicked into his hands or arms, he is still playing at the ball even though it is a rebound. You see it all the time in video ref decisions when two players are diving for a grubber.

Say in the Stewart no try, if Thaiday hit it into Stewart's arm or hand instead of grounding it, then it came forward off Stewart's arm or hand into the ground, then Stewart grounded it, it's a clear cut knock-on. Even though Stewart isn't 'playing at the ball off Thaiday's hand' like Karl's stupid arguments, he is still playing at the ball. Same with the Inglis one. If you are playing at the ball, trying to catch, ground, hit, rake or whatever, and it comes off your hand or arm it is a knock on.

 

[TimmyB]

Perhaps in a very literal approach to the rules that works, but such a literal approach degenerates into absurdity.

When a player shepherd's the ball dead, if the ball bounces up and strikes the player, it is ruled as played at. Even though the clear intention of the player was to not touch the ball, it is deemed as played at. Surely there should be a similar application in this instance.

 

[Springs]

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.

That doesn't mean anything though. If say a defender is shielding the ball and an attacker come and bats it back into him then it goes dead it is considered a drop out. It's not like it came off Inglis's head or legs, it came off his lower arms, the arms that were trying to ground the football. It is a knock on. Even if Farah's foot is in the way it is a knock on. Every time.

 

[AuDragon]

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.

Here you go mate. This will certainly help convicting all those Qld'ers who inflicted that terrible butt hurt:

 

[TimmyB]

Yeah, jokes about sexual assault are hilarious.

 

[AuDragon]

Yeah, jokes about sexual assault are hilarious.

Oh sorry sweetheart, you want one too?

 

[The Gambler]

Tough call - could have gone either way. My personal opinion though is that common sense says No Try.

No one can be certain that Farah was playing at the ball - for what it is worth he actually looked a bit of balance with his feet spraying everywhere.

And equally no one can be certain whether Inglis was playing at the ball when it came off his forearm.

Two critical parts to the try, both involving the concept of 'playing at the ball', a concept which is inherently subjective on its own.

Doesn't get much tougher than that.

 

[gronkathon]

It is a farce of equal or greater proportions that guys scoring trys with their junk last year

 

[Keffola]

Perhaps in a very literal approach to the rules that works, but such a literal approach degenerates into absurdity.

When a player shepherd's the ball dead, if the ball bounces up and strikes the player, it is ruled as played at. Even though the clear intention of the player was to not touch the ball, it is deemed as played at. Surely there should be a similar application in this instance.

Agree with this 100%. There are other cases where no intention of touching a ball still ends with common sense ruling of it having been played at. Such as decoy runners knocking it on when not expecting the ball, and above example regarding sheperding balls over the sideline. Why would it not be applied in the action of scoring a try?

 

[Knightmare]

I am somewhat unsurprised that Harrigan has come out and backed a terrible decision. Inglis was playing at the ball, after it hit Farah's boot, Inglis played at the ball, dropped it and then pounced on it. Knock on. But then again, this is the same Bill Harrigan who saw no problem allowing NSW to score from a double knock on back in 2000...

 

[AuDragon]

Say in the Stewart no try, if Thaiday hit it into Stewart's arm or hand instead of grounding it, then it came forward off Stewart's arm or hand into the ground, then Stewart grounded it, it's a clear cut knock-on. Even though Stewart isn't 'playing at the ball off Thaiday's hand' like Karl's stupid arguments, he is still playing at the ball. Same with the Inglis one. If you are playing at the ball, trying to catch, ground, hit, rake or whatever, and it comes off your hand or arm it is a knock on.

No that would've been a try as well, for the same reason GI's was a try.

You guys are confusing intent to score a try with intent to play the ball Farah kicked.

1- Slater bats ball back
2- Inglis recovers the ball and intends to ground it.
3- While Inglis is in the process of grounding it, Farah kicks and dislodges the ball, which makes it a LIVE ball.

From here on, it's a new play! Inglis is no longer in the process of grounding the ball, as he no longer has possession of it.

So, does Inglis knock on attempting to recover the ball Farah kicked, or does the ball bounce forward from Inglis forearm?

The video ref and Harrigan say it was a rebound and thus the ball was live to be played at by anyone. I agree with that view.

NSW'kers will argue till the end of days that in that split second between the kick from Farah and the bounce on Inglis arm, he actually attempted to play at it.

Like someone said, it's like arguing religion. You can't argue against faith, even if you have all the facts in the world.

The Uate try is as doubtful as the Inglis try, and yet everyone shuts up about it. Same thing with Hayne's love tap (regardless of Thurston's antics), which should've been a penalty. No one is arguing about that either, only about a penalty against Bird, which technically is correct as the player went over the horizontal, although I think it was a great tackle personally.

 

[mctarmac]

He is trying to score a try. He is playing at it. Same as when a player is diving for the ball and then has it hit or kicked into his hands or arms, he is still playing at the ball even though it is a rebound. You see it all the time in video ref decisions when two players are diving for a grubber.

Say in the Stewart no try, if Thaiday hit it into Stewart's arm or hand instead of grounding it, then it came forward off Stewart's arm or hand into the ground, then Stewart grounded it, it's a clear cut knock-on. Even though Stewart isn't 'playing at the ball off Thaiday's hand' like Karl's stupid arguments, he is still playing at the ball. Same with the Inglis one. If you are playing at the ball, trying to catch, ground, hit, rake or whatever, and it comes off your hand or arm it is a knock on.

17 pages and certain sections of fans haven't grasped the folly of using analogy when debating law.

The 'knock on' NSW fans cite is clearly part of the motion of having the ball kicked out of his grasp. This is what everyone so far with a position of any authority has said and is abundantly clear from the replay.

A good way to think about this is to look at how things would work if it went in NSW favor. Good to know that if someone kicks the ball out of my hands.. and it brushes my forearm while coming out of my hands... that I knocked the ball on... do you see the lack of disincentive here? Why not always kick it out of the hands?

Also; anyone saying Robbies foot was unintentional simply hasn't played enough to recognize the body language, he clearly shaped to tackle Inglis who he thought was angling in towards the goal posts... Inglis instead simply rotates where he is and tries to put the ball down.... Robbie, while still in the shape and posture to tackle a player angling in, flicks his foot out beyond the right hand side of his body balance, thus the rolling fall afterwards.


The try aside... my lord what a load of complaining. You want to dominate QLD for 20 minutes and score 4 points....never threaten QLD line unless Billy spilled it, take the worst decision ever in going for the points from the 40 at the most critical juncture of the game, not to mention lose a player due to clear cut discipline issues, lack any kind of back line cohesiveness (e.g. Haynes falling asleep), pathetic goal kicking, pathetic penalty kicks that fail to find touch.....


But if only that try wasn't awarded....


Really?

 

[AuDragon]

Agree with this 100%. There are other cases where no intention of touching a ball still ends with common sense ruling of it having been played at. Such as decoy runners knocking it on when not expecting the ball, and above example regarding sheperding balls over the sideline. Why would it not be applied in the action of scoring a try?

It's not the same thing though, the ball hasn't been kicked into the player. If in that same example, an opposition player manages to somehow kick the ball into the player shepherding the ball, it will be ruled not played at, like many grubber kicks in attack are ruled not to be played at...

The opposite example would be when a player charges a kick. Regardless of where the ball hits, it will not be ruled a knock on.

Endless discussion really...

 

[Karl]

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"

I understand what you're saying. I thought the same at first, but them I read the rules and decided that:

He picked up a loose ball from the kick and he was trying to ground the ball in goal and then Jarah kicked it out of his hands. THEN it rebounded or ricocheted off his arm - no knockon.

AFTER that rebound occurs he sees the loose ball and scrambles to apply downward pressure.

There wasn't a zenlike state There was attempt 1, then the ball gets dislodged, then attempt 2

 

[Karl]

Perhaps in a very literal approach to the rules that works, but such a literal approach degenerates into absurdity.

When a player shepherd's the ball dead, if the ball bounces up and strikes the player, it is ruled as played at. Even though the clear intention of the player was to not touch the ball, it is deemed as played at. Surely there should be a similar application in this instance.

Here there is one player and he is playing at the ball - he is protecting it with his body from other players.

Also, if that is not enough, there is, in this example, no OTHER PLAYER kicking the ball into contact with him. It just misjudges the bounce of a ball he is trying to protect so it can go dead without an attacking player scoring a try from it.

 

[Karl]

That doesn't mean anything though. If say a defender is shielding the ball and an attacker come and bats it back into him then it goes dead it is considered a drop out. It's not like it came off Inglis's head or legs, it came off his lower arms, the arms that were trying to ground the football. It is a knock on. Even if Farah's foot is in the way it is a knock on. Every time.

You just ignore everything and keep saying the same thing over and over again.

 

[gronkathon]

I have not looked at it since this morning so I have a question.

When Farahs foot makes contact with the ball is his heel in the air or is it on the ground?

 

[I Bleed Maroon]

I have not looked at it since this morning so I have a question.

When Farahs foot makes contact with the ball is his heel in the air or is it on the ground?

It's in the air. He intentionally stuck his foot out to dislodge it from GIs hands. The only Blues denying this fact are all butthurt.

 

[Spud]

Queenslander opinion- the try was bullshit. I can't even laugh at Gallen's whinge because he was certantly justified. I wont say it cost NSw the game or gave QLD the game but if the score stays 12-10 with seven minutes remaining it makes things interesting.

 

[Karl]

I am somewhat unsurprised that Harrigan has come out and backed a terrible decision. Inglis was playing at the ball, after it hit Farah's boot, Inglis played at the ball, dropped it and then pounced on it. Knock on. But then again, this is the same Bill Harrigan who saw no problem allowing NSW to score from a double knock on back in 2000...

It just did not happen that way. Watch the replays. You're just wrong. It was kicked into his arm and rebounded off. No knock on, no playing at it. End of story.