Worst Try In The History Of Origin

[Karl]

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.

^^^ This. On all points.

 

[gronkathon]

OK so the rule is established that if a ball hits your arm at any time and you are not playing at it we go with play on?

 

[Doga]

Quick question - slightly related...are you allowed to slide in with the knees to stop a try?

 

[East Coast Tiger]

At least a couple of Queenslanders are able to admit what a facre it was.

The rest of the mongs who are still trying to justify this joke are just showing what bias, geniuss they are and shouldn't wonder why they are called inbred derps.

 

[Karl]

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?

^^^And This.

This forum needs a "Like Post" function.

 

[Paullyboy]

At least a couple of Queenslanders are able to admit what a facre it was.

The rest of the mongs who are still trying to justify this joke are just showing what bias, geniuss they are and shouldn't wonder why they are called inbred derps.

Haha I love it when someone is incorrectly whining about something accuses the correct party of looking at the issue through bias.

It was a clear try. No doubt whatsoever. Anyone who doesn't understand that is the one with a bias issue.

 

[Paullyboy]

There was much, much more doubt on the Uate try that you got too, I love how you blues all forget about that one.

 

[Karl]

OK so the rule is established that if a ball hits your arm at any time and you are not playing at it we go with play on?

Where are you getting this from? Thats not what is being said, you know it's not what's being said, you're just being argumentative.

The rule that is established is that if another player kicks a ball into you and it rebounds or ricochets off you without being played at, it is not a knock on.

 

[Someone]

^^^And This.

This forum needs a "Like Post" function.

actually no, it doesnt.

 

[Karl]

At least a couple of Queenslanders are able to admit what a facre it was.

The rest of the mongs who are still trying to justify this joke are just showing what bias, geniuss they are and shouldn't wonder why they are called inbred derps.

That's one way to go ECT, insults, invective, spew a bit of bile. Or you could comment intelligently and contribute to the analysis of the Rules and their application to this particular incident.

 

[MSIH]

There was much, much more doubt on the Uate try that you got too, I love how you blues all forget about that one.

Can't be serious

 

[Springs]

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

So do you, you hypocrite. :roll:

It's debatable whether there is even separation. The ball goes straight up Inglis's arms from his hands then forward. He was in the motion of grounding the ball. If it was a hand that knocked it out then it would be a double knock on. Clearly.

It was a clear try. No doubt whatsoever. Anyone who doesn't understand that is the one with a bias issue.

:lol: No doubt?! He looked at it 10 times and there's no doubt? The majority of fans doubt the call and there is no doubt? Now that sounds like bias.

If you are worried about the complaining, then why complain about the complaining? If you call us whingers then why the hell have you spent all day arguing with us if you are so high and mighty and sure of yourselves it was a try?

QLD were the better team and deserved to win. NSW had no attack on the line. Doesn't mean the Inglis try is a try. Why the hell have you spent so much time defending it if you don't care, you were just going to win anyway? f**k some QLD supporters are hypocrites.

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

He stuck it out to stop Inglis scoring. If it's illegal it's a penalty try, but they have said it's legal which means Inglis just loses control of the ball. It doesn't matter if it's dislodged or not it's still came out of his hands and gone forward which is a KNOCK ON. If Farah committed an illegal act then fair penalty try.

 

[Spud]

On replay I thought Uate's try was fine. At first in live motion.it looked to travel forward but it was fair play

 

[Big Pete]

You couldn't definitively say whether Uate did or didn't get a touch on it.

Fair try.

 

[Someone]

You couldn't definitively say whether Uate did or didn't get a touch on it.

Fair try.

pretty sure i asked you a question..

 

[mctarmac]

Where are you getting this from? Thats not what is being said, you know it's not what's being said, you're just being argumentative.

The rule that is established is that if another player kicks a ball into you and it rebounds or ricochets off you without being played at, it is not a knock on.

All that needs to be said really.

Bit absurd really that the NSWelshmen would think kicking the ball at an opposing player and belting a deflection off him would result in a knock on. Could see plenty of interesting tactics evolving if the referees were dumb enough to agree.

 

[Eels Dude]

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?

He is in the process of planting his foot on the ground... he is not making a kicking motion like some are suggesting. His foot dislodges the ball within a split second of Inglis catching it... and there's no real suggestion that Farah even intentionally dislodged the ball.

 

[Karl]

He is in the process of planting his foot on the ground... he is not making a kicking motion like some are suggesting. His foot dislodges the ball within a split second of Inglis catching it... and there's no real suggestion that Farah even intentionally dislodged the ball.

Complete bullshit on all counts.

 

[Eels Dude]

Complete bullshit on all counts.

You're the one arguing about reaction time. How much reaction time did Robbie Farah have to react to Inglis grabbing the loose ball and get out of the way... or have his right foot amputated.

 

[I Bleed Maroon]

He is in the process of planting his foot on the ground... he is not making a kicking motion like some are suggesting. His foot dislodges the ball within a split second of Inglis catching it... and there's no real suggestion that Farah even intentionally dislodged the ball.

And I bet most people thought your breath smelt like shit because you don't brush your teeth.