Worst Try In The History Of Origin

[Springs]

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.

Not if the QLD defender dislodges the ball from his hands then the ball goes straight back into Uate's arms and then is propelled forward.

Harrigan says as soon as Farah dislodged it it is a 'live ball', so as soon as it goes into Inglis's arms and then forward it is a knock-on.

In any other rugby league game on earth that is a straight knock-on, 20m restart.

 

[Canard]

I reckon the NSW one where Supercoach David Furner clearly knocked the ball causing QLD to stop playing whilst NSW ran 50m to score was the worst.

Tallis got 10mins in the bin for calling Harrigan a cheat directly afterwards.

 

[Karl]

http://www.nrl.com/i-never-spoke-to...spx?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Ohhh Dear...Sticky Sticky Sticky

Someone is telling big fat lies. My money is on Sticky being the culprit. Silly, silly man.

 

[Springs]

thats not what happened though is it?

yes!!! It is!

 

[Canard]

Harrigan says as soon as Farah dislodged it it is a 'live ball', so as soon as it goes into Inglis's arms and then forward it is a knock-on.

Thats awesome spin!!! There is no way we could ever agree on a position on this is thats your take on the matter.

 

[Johns Magic]

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.

No rules of the game support what you're saying. Not one.

I just highlighted exactly why your interpretation of the rule you just tried to apply is ridiculous.

The scenarios I laid out perfectly demonstrate what your logic is: that a player contesting the ball shouldn't be penalized if the ball takes a deflection he doesn't have time to react to.

Explain to me how the principles of the scenarios are any different to the Inglis try. Though I bet you'll just dodge around them again.

 

[Canard]

Inglis had clear possesion of the ball, it was kicked out by Farah, Inglis then regathered it to score a try.

Pretty clear cut.

 

[Johns Magic]

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.

Then what happened after it became a live ball? Did it not go straight into Inglis's arm? Let's see what Harrigan also said:

http://m.heraldsun.com.au/sport/nrl...-greg-inglis-try/story-e6frfgco-1226365113113

You Queenslanders are f**king joking if you think it didn't. And you're having a wank if you're going to keep trying to twist the interpretation of intent to play at the ball.

 

[isaiah]

oh, i thought the title of this was about the first nsw try, clearly a knock on by uate into the qld player

 

[analyst]

I dont know why that effort was allowed, arnt you allowed to play at the ball when defending your in-goal? I thought a 20m restart was more appropriate....

 

[Canard]

Then what happened after it became a live ball? Did it not go straight into Inglis's arm?

No Inglis had possesion and the kick disloged it from his posession.

The ball was then live to be played at by all players on the field.

 

[Ron's_Mate]

Queenslanders make the best trolls.

 

[betcats]

Inglis had clear possesion of the ball, it was kicked out by Farah, Inglis then regathered it to score a try.

Pretty clear cut.

You're leaving out the knock on.

 

[Karl]

Not if the QLD defender dislodges the ball from his hands then the ball goes straight back into Uate's arms and then is propelled forward.

Harrigan says as soon as Farah dislodged it it is a 'live ball', so as soon as it goes into Inglis's arms and then forward it is a knock-on.

In any other rugby league game on earth that is a straight knock-on, 20m restart.

Under the rules, only if he played at it. He could not possibly have played at it in the 100ths of a second it took to come off Farah's boot and hit his forearms. Its just a ridiculous contention. Your synapses and physical reaction times just won't allow an intentional act to be executed that fast. Its impossible.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

I dont know why that effort was allowed, arnt you allowed to play at the ball when defending your in-goal? I thought a 20m restart was more appropriate....

The rules state you can't play at the ball with your leg or foot when attempting to save a try.

 

[Karl]

You're leaving out the knock on.

Because there wasn't one.

 

[Springs]

No Inglis had possesion and the kick disloged it from his posession.

The ball was then live to be played at by all players on the field.

And unfortunately the ball went straight into Inglis's arms while he was still trying to ground it, then went forward. KNOCK ON. Sorry.

 

[Karl]

yes!!! It is!

He did NOT fumble it while trying to regather. Watch the video again.

It's kicked out of his hands (arguably illegally, but that's irrelevant). A hundredth of a second or less later it hits GI's forearm after traveling the distance of a few inches. It travels forward and hits the ground. GI applies downward pressure.

Where is this fumble while attempting to regather you speak of? His brain wouldn't have even registered that the ball was kicked out of his hands when it hit his arm. GI could not possible have played at it, attempted to regather it or anything else in that time. These are just facts. They aren't open to interpretation or argument.

Therefore, under the Rules, there can be no Knock On. Therefore there is a live, loose ball in the in goal. GI applies downward pressure. Try.

 

[Springs]

Under the rules, only if he played at it. He could not possibly have played at it in the 100ths of a second it took to come off Farah's boot and hit his forearms. Its just a ridiculous contention. Your synapses and physical reaction times just won't allow an intentional act to be executed that fast. Its impossible.

It is not!

He obviously played at it! 1000ths of seconds don't come into it. He was attempting to ground the ball through the time it came off Farah's foot, it was dislodged, went into his arms then went forward. In an attempt to ground the ball, no matter if Farah dislodged it or not, he has knocked it on.

What you are saying is like saying if a player bats a ball from his right hand into his left arm and then it goes forward he couldn't possibly have knocked on because he couldn't possibly have played at it in the 1000ths of a second from when it came off his hand and went into his arm accidently. It's absolutely ridiculous what you are saying.

If you are going to bring 1000ths of a second into it then I can say that all these no separation tries aren't tries because although the player is still in contact with the ball, in the fraction of a second when it hits the ground there is no downward pressure on it, then only after that fraction of a second does he put downward pressure on it.

 

[Karl]

And unfortunately the ball went straight into Inglis's arms while he was still trying to ground it, then went forward. KNOCK ON. Sorry.

So he was trying to ground a ball he no longer had (which means you admit he could not have reacted to it being dislodged by Farah's boot and actually played at THAT) while in the meantime it had been kicked out of his hands and into his forearm.

The fact that BEFORE the ball was dislodged by Farah's boot he was trying to ground it means nothing. That act of trying to ground a ball he no longer had is not playing at a ball that was now coming off someones boot.