Worst Try In The History Of Origin

[Springs]

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.

Show me the rule where it state 1000ths of a second and brain registry? In every rugby league game on earth that is a knock on. The whole time he is trying to ground the ball, and unless you think trying to ground the ball isn't playing at it, it is a knock on!

He is attempting to ground the ball where he thinks it is. Under your rules everytime the ball comes off a player ut does not hit his hands he isn't playing at it.
It's come out of his hands into his arms then forward. That is a knock on sir.

 

[Karl]

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.

Thats not even close to what I am saying. You're just being ridiculous now.

 

[Karl]

Show me the rule where it state 1000ths of a second and brain registry? In every rugby league game on earth that is a knock on. The whole time he is trying to ground the ball, and unless you think trying to ground the ball isn't playing at it, it is a knock on!

He is attempting to ground the ball where he thinks it is. Under your rules everytime the ball comes off a player ut does not hit his hands he isn't playing at it.
It's come out of his hands into his arms then forward. That is a knock on sir.

The rules require that for a knock on to occur the player must have played at the ball. Simple. You agree so far? OK, good.

Now, I have posted up an extract and a link already in this thread that shows this.

Playing at a ball is an intentional act. You agree with that? You agree with that? Ok, good.

Now, explain to me how GI formed an intention and had his body react to and execute on that intention to play at a ball that his brain had not even registered had been kicked out of his hands yet.

Your application of the rules falls down because it ignores the fact that Farah's boot knocked the ball out of his hands and into his arm.

Anyway. there's no point arguing with you about it. You're wrong, but you'll never admit it.

 

[Springs]

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.

It doesn't matter if he is reacting to it or not he is trying to ground the ball which is playing at it right? Knock on. Sorry

Now, explain to me how GI formed an intention and had his body react to and execute on that intention to play at a ball that his brain had not even registered had been kicked out of his hands yet

You don't get it do you? It doesn't matter what his intention was he is still playing at the ball. Do you not understand that an attempt to ground the ball is playing at it? Your assertions are ridiculous. Under your rules late tackles should be ok because the tackler's brain hasn't registered that the player has passed or kicked it yet, or closing your eyes and putting pressure on a kicker isn't playing at it because he doesn't know he's kicked it yet.

If two players are trying to ground the ball and the defender hits it first then it goes into the attacker's arm then dead is it a knock on? Yes. Why? Because even though the attacker didn't know the defender had hit the ball, the attacker is STILL PLAYING AT IT!

 

[Valheru]

Karl just STFU, you are embarrassing yourself.

Fatso Inglis tried to ground the ball on Farah’s foot (1st knock on), it then comes off his forearm in his 2nd attempt to ground the ball (2nd knock on).

Once again though, it doesn’t matter because it “didn’t decide the game”. What a load of garbage, it robbed NSW of a fair chance to win.

 

[Springs]

And you sir Karl have not answered any of my scenarios which are relatable to the Inglis knock-on. I'm guessing because in all those scenarios it is a knock-on same as the Inglis one.

In every rugby league game on earth it is a knock-on. Why you ask? Because he knocked it forward while playing at it. A half blind ref can see it. In every country game it's a knock on call straight away, in every city game, in every rep game, in every junior game, in any god damn run around in the park, hell even in NRL and ESL most of the time. But because we can look at it on video 1000 times we can bring brain registered intention in a 1000th of a second and make a howler of a call like that. What shit.

 

[Lowdown]

Surely the bigger issue here is, did Ricky Stuart lie when he stated Harrigan said it was a no try. Or did the Daily Telegraph?

Btw - its a try.

 

[Usain Bolt]

 

[Dragon2010]

Someone has to much time on their hands...

 

[Karl]

Karl just STFU, you are embarrassing yourself.

Fatso Inglis tried to ground the ball on Farah’s foot (1st knock on), it then comes off his forearm in his 2nd attempt to ground the ball (2nd knock on).

Once again though, it doesn’t matter because it “didn’t decide the game”. What a load of garbage, it robbed NSW of a fair chance to win.

Valheru, bite me. Read the rules, watch the video and grow a brain. There were no knock ons and yet you manage to find not one, but 2 of them. You clearly can't follow a logical thread of reasoning or apply a simple rule to an obvious factual scenario caught from 4 different angles.

Give up.

 

[Karl]

It doesn't matter if he is reacting to it or not he is trying to ground the ball which is playing at it right? Knock on. Sorry



You don't get it do you? It doesn't matter what his intention was he is still playing at the ball. Do you not understand that an attempt to ground the ball is playing at it? Your assertions are ridiculous. Under your rules late tackles should be ok because the tackler's brain hasn't registered that the player has passed or kicked it yet, or closing your eyes and putting pressure on a kicker isn't playing at it because he doesn't know he's kicked it yet.

If two players are trying to ground the ball and the defender hits it first then it goes into the attacker's arm then dead is it a knock on? Yes. Why? Because even though the attacker didn't know the defender had hit the ball, the attacker is STILL PLAYING AT IT!

You don't even realize that you're not making any sense at all do you?

And all of these silly comparisons are just laughable. Just apply the rules to what ACTUALLY happened you dense merkin.

 

[Karl]

And you sir Karl have not answered any of my scenarios which are relatable to the Inglis knock-on. I'm guessing because in all those scenarios it is a knock-on same as the Inglis one.

In every rugby league game on earth it is a knock-on. Why you ask? Because he knocked it forward while playing at it. A half blind ref can see it. In every country game it's a knock on call straight away, in every city game, in every rep game, in every junior game, in any god damn run around in the park, hell even in NRL and ESL most of the time. But because we can look at it on video 1000 times we can bring brain registered intention in a 1000th of a second and make a howler of a call like that. What sh!t.

I'm not answering your fanciful and unnecessary hypothetical scenarios because they are fanciful and hypothetical and have no bearing on what actually happened.

He was trying to score a try. Farah kicked the ball loose. It went from his boot off GI's arm WITHOUT GI PLAYING AT IT and was live and loose in goal.

 

[tigertiger]

Clear knock on, no try.

Regardless if it was intentional or not, it was in no dangerous position (can't put the Billy Slater rule here) and Farah had every right to save the try.

Inglis knocked it on off his forearm and grounded it.

IF Inglis had caught the ball after it came off his forearm, then it would have been a try.

This is the biggest blunder in video reffing existence.

 

[tigertiger]

..WITHOUT GI PLAYING AT IT and was live and loose in goal.

Since when were knock on's decided by the player playing at it or not?

 

[Frank_Grimes]

Clear knock on, no try.

Regardless if it was intentional or not, it was in no dangerous position (can't put the Billy Slater rule here) and Farah had every right to save the try.

No he didn't. It is an illegal play to attack the football with your legs or feet when attempting to save a try.

 

[tigertiger]

No he didn't. It is an illegal play to attack the football with your legs or feet when attempting to save a try.

GI changed directions and Farah switched footing to compensate, his boot dislodging the ball in the process.

Where was the ball security? It came off his forearm = knock on.

 

[Hutty1986]

GI changed directions and Farah switched footing to compensate, his boot dislodging the ball in the process.

Where was the ball security? It came off his forearm = knock on.

It was clear as day it was a knock-on, but you won't see Harrigon admit that

 

[AceAv]

Since when were knock on's decided by the player playing at it or not?

When a player kicks a ball, then it hits an opposing player THAT DOESNT PLAY AT IT. Play on...

-But regardless, if this was the try that won NSW the game it would be us crying knock on and NSW saying fair call. There will always be 50/50 calls and grey area in NRL. Solution: SCORE MORE TRIES!?

 

[Springs]

You don't even realize that you're not making any sense at all do you?

And all of these silly comparisons are just laughable. Just apply the rules to what ACTUALLY happened you dense merkin.

Me? Not making sense? You're the one evryone thinks is embarrassing himself you idiot.

They aren't laughable, they are the rules under your undertanding. Inglis was playing at the ball, it came off his arm, knock-on. Do you not understand this words. Can you not comprehend something this simple, that has been in the game since it began? Are that dense? Any reasonable person who has any idea about the knock-on rule called that a knock on when they saw it and would call it a knock on in any game played around the world. You are the one bringing 1000ths of a second and brain registry into it.

 

[Springs]

When a player kicks a ball, then it hits an opposing player THAT DOESNT PLAY AT IT. Play on...

-But regardless, if this was the try that won NSW the game it would be us crying knock on and NSW saying fair call. There will always be 50/50 calls and grey area in NRL. Solution: SCORE MORE TRIES!?

None of you foolish Queenslanders have said how trying to ground the ball isn't playing at it?! If a player kicks the ball and it hits an opposing player's arms that are trying to ground that very same ball, HOW IS THAT NOT PLAYING AT IT?