Worst Try In The History Of Origin

[Frank_Grimes]

Without the action of Farah's boot, the ball is grounded for a try. The only grey area is the matter of intent on Farah's part.

 

[gUt]

It looked like a pretty clear cut try to me but then I didn't see the ball hit Inglis's forearm on the way to the ground after Farah kicked it out. If that happened then it should have been a knock on.

 

[betcats]

It looked like a pretty clear cut try to me but then I didn't see the ball hit Inglis's forearm on the way to the ground after Farah kicked it out. If that happened then it should have been a knock on.

For me it definately hit GIs arm and went forward, I thought all controversy was over the interpretation of a kncok on and whether or not GI played at it, imo he was playing at it but there is always going to be differing opinions.

 

[gUt]

If it hit his arm the way it's being claimed here then I would think 'playing at it' shouldn't come into it. IF it bounced off his arm and went forward - knock-on.

 

[Johns Magic]

Without the action of Farah's boot, the ball is grounded for a try. The only grey area is the matter of intent on Farah's part.

The day what Farah did is illegal is the day rugby league has officially lost the plot.

Farah's intention was clearly to dislodge the ball from Inglis's hands. It wasn't a dangerous act that could have ended with another player's injury(unlike Thurston's wild swing to David Williams's head, or Slater's stud-first trysavers).

It was a fair challenge. Anyone with any sense will tell you that, and anyone trying to use some rule they're misinterpreting as an argument that it was illegal is kidding themselves.

Fair challenges with players' feet happen legally all the time in the NRL and are rightly not scrutinized.

 

[Karl]

For him to have played at it he must have played at it as it came off the boot of Farah. That is the simple fact of it.

He could not have played at it off the boot of Farah because it is not physically possible to react that fast. Look at the reaction times required, say, when driving a car from when you see a red light to when your foot even begins to move to the brake. When the ball came off Farah's boot - the start of the relevant piece of play - and hit GI's forearms he would not have even registered that it had left his hands let alone been able to react and play at it. Watch the video again.

He must have played at the ball AFTER it was dislodged and came OFF THE BOOT OF FARAH for it to have been a knock on, not played at it in some general sense that he was engaged in an attempt to score a try before the ball was dislodged.

 

[Karl]

If it hit his arm the way it's being claimed here then I would think 'playing at it' shouldn't come into it. IF it bounced off his arm and went forward - knock-on.

Wrong. The Rules clearly state otherwise. What you think should or should not come into it is irrelevant.

 

[Karl]

The day what Farah did is illegal is the day rugby league has officially lost the plot.

Farah's intention was clearly to dislodge the ball from Inglis's hands. It wasn't a dangerous act that could have ended with another player's injury(unlike Thurston's wild swing to David Williams's head, or Slater's stud-first trysavers).

It was a fair challenge. Anyone with any sense will tell you that, and anyone trying to use some rule they're misinterpreting as an argument that it was illegal is kidding themselves.

Fair challenges with players' feet happen legally all the time in the NRL and are rightly not scrutinized.

Doesn't matter if Farah played at it with his foot legally or illegally. It dislodged the ball that went loose without being knocked on (because GI did not play at it off Farah's boot) and was then grounded in goal for a try.

 

[Canard]

As Karl is saying, no fan is arguing about malice in the act of playing the ball, its about dislodging it.

Its gone from:

He dropped it cold to
He knocked it on to
There is no way Farah played at it in that split second to
Inglis played at it in that split second

 

[Frank_Grimes]

The day what Farah did is illegal is the day rugby league has officially lost the plot.

Farah's intention was clearly to dislodge the ball from Inglis's hands.

You do realise that it's an illegal play to do precisely what you describe right?

 

[Dragon2010]

http://www.nrl.com/i-never-spoke-to-stuart-nrls-harrigan/tabid/10874/newsid/67614/default.aspx?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Ohhh Dear...Sticky Sticky Sticky

 

[gUt]

Wrong. The Rules clearly state otherwise. What you think should or should not come into it is irrelevant.

A few things.

1) It was a 50/50 call and either way the decision was OK by me.
2) The rules talk about a deliberate knock on. What the f**k is a deliberate knock on?
3) Inglis was trying to score a try when it was kicked out of his hands. This is by definition playing at the ball.

 

[Johns Magic]

For him to have played at it he must have played at it as it came off the boot of Farah. That is the simple fact of it.

He could not have played at it off the boot of Farah because it is not physically possible to react that fast. Look at the reaction times required, say, when driving a car from when you see a red light to when your foot even begins to move to the brake. When the ball came off Farah's boot - the start of the relevant piece of play - and hit GI's forearms he would not have even registered that it had left his hands let alone been able to react and play at it. Watch the video again.

He must have played at the ball AFTER it was dislodged and came OFF THE BOOT OF FARAH for it to have been a knock on, not played at it in some general sense that he was engaged in an attempt to score a try before the ball was dislodged.

Are you for real? Honestly, do you believe what you're saying?

How about we use your bizarre logic.

Pearce puts up a high ball for Hayne to contest, against Tate. Whilst both in the air challenging for the ball, Tate gets a touch first off his shoulder. The ball then goes straight into Hayne's hands(just not where he expected it to exactly be) and he drops it onto the ground. Then Hayne dives on it.

Are you going to tell me Hayne wasn't playing at it because he couldn't have had time to anticipate where the ball would be after bouncing off Tate's shoulder? Seriously?

Or what about this. NSW are ten meters out, and Carney throws a bullet cutout to an unmarked Uate. While the pass is in the air, Boyd plays at it and it deflects on it's way to Uate. Uate doesn't have time to react to the deflection, and so the ball goes flying forward off his arm, into the in-goal, where he then dives on it. Is that another fair try, because Uate didn't have time to react to the deflection?

This could go on all day, but it doesn't take that long to highlight just how nonsensical and ridiculous your interpretation is.

 

[Canard]

If Uate is clearly holding the ball 20m out from the line and a QLD defender deliberatly knocks the ball from his hands and propels it 20m forward, than yes it is play on.

 

[Springs]

Please do tell oh enlighted one, where in the rules does it say that when a ball is kicked onto a player's hands or arms, it's a knock-on?
Pretty sure that there is a rule that says it isn't...

Greetings from one of those idiot Qld'ers with a smile from ear to ear.

What a smug QLD dick.

If Farah playing at that ball is a kick you might as well call slater stopping Farah with his knee in the first half a kick you fool.

If the ball is forced out like that and a player fumbles it while trying to regather it is a knock on.

 

[Karl]

Harrigan said he's taken the issue up with NRL media director John Brady.
"I just finished talking with (Telegraph executive sports editor) Phil Rothfield and now I've left it with John Brady to take it up with Ricky Stuart," Harrigan told radio station Triple M.
"Because I did not speak with Ricky Stuart at all last night."
As for Hampstead's crucial decision - in which he ruled Blues hooker Robbie Farah had deliberately kicked the ball out of Inglis's hands as he attempted to score - Harrigan said he'd have to review the footage carefully before making a definitive comment.
"I still haven't reviewed the game yet and until I get back to Sydney and have a real good look at it (I won't be able to say).
"I can tell you the video referee deems Farah plays it with his foot, the ball comes loose. That means it's a live ball.
"And then when he (Inglis) puts his hands on the ball, that would be a try."

So how is my logic bizarre? Johns Magic, you are missing the point entirely and you're comparisons or "applications" of my "logic" are not remotely relevant. We don't need silly hypotheticals, we have the actual incident and can apply the rules of the game to it quite easily.

 

[Johns Magic]

If Uate is clearly holding the ball 20m out from the line and a QLD defender deliberatly knocks the ball from his hands and propels it 20m forward, than yes it is play on.

Yes, congratulations. Pity it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Back in reality, we are discussing what the ruling would be if Uate then knocked the ball on after it had already been knocked out and travelled through the air. You know, like the scenarios I just spelt out.

 

[Karl]

What a smug QLD dick.

If Farah playing at that ball is a kick you might as well call slater stopping Farah with his knee in the first half a kick you fool.

If the ball is forced out like that and a player fumbles it while trying to regather it is a knock on.

Thats not what happened though is it?

 

[Canard]

From Harrigans mouth

"I can tell you the video referee deems Farah plays it with his foot, the ball comes loose. That means it's a live ball."

Thats exactly how I saw it also, Fair Try.

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

The basketball slam dunk try that I think Carlaw scored 10/11 years ago was worse.