Worst Try In The History Of Origin

[Karl]

http://m.heraldsun.com.au/sport/ref...-greg-inglis-try/story-e6frf9if-1226365409920

So will you shut up now?

The contention wasn't with the initially dislodging of the ball, it from when the ball hit G.I's forearms after it came off Farah's foot

Harrigan has come out and said he never spoke to Ricky, which makes Ricky a lying merkin. I hope he has a few awkward questions to answer after this.

 

[Karl]

At 1:20 in this video Broncos were awarded a penalty try against Melbourne in 2010 because the ball was kicked out of Yow Yeh's hands, he didn't even ground it afterwards. Funny thing is Gus says "Slater kicked it, which is an illegal play"

Gus is a one-eyed disgrace. Someone should email him this link and tell him to shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

 

[AuDragon]

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.

Wrong example. You're talking about a divided ball contest, where both players are playing at the ball.

In the case at hand, GI is in possession and Farah DISLODGES the ball. The rule says it's play on, regardless of which direction the ball takes.

 

[Valheru]

Did he play at the ball as it came off Farah's boot?

ANSWER - NO. He could not possibly have played at the ball as it came off Farah's boot.

WAS he playing the ball (ie, attempting to ground it) BEFORE Farah kicked it loose (illegally)? Yes. Is that relevant? NO. What he was doing BEFORE the ball is knocked loose is irrelevant. What matters is what he was doing AFTER the ball came of Farahs boot. It doesn't matter whether it came off GI's forearms because he did not play at it. What is so hard to understand?

Of course he was playing at the ball you imbecile.

He was trying to score a try FFS.

 

[Karl]

Of course he was playing at the ball you imbecile.

He was trying to score a try FFS.

Ok I'll type this slowly so you can understand.

He WAS trying to score a try.

THEN Farah dislodged the ball with his boot by kicking it out of GI's hands.

At this point GI is not playing at the ball any more. He WAS, he was trying to ground it, but then it was dislodged and he lost it.

The ball then left Farah's boot and hit GI's forearms and rolled in goal. For it to be a knock on, GI MUST have played at the ball AFTER it left Farah's boot.

Which he didn't. He couldn't have. Spiderman with his Spidey senses and Spidey reactions could not have played at that ball after it left Farahs boot.

And lets not forget that knocking the ball out of a try scorers hands with your boot is illegal and Gus Gould in on record to that effect in relation to the Bronco's try when Slater did it.

So EITHER way, its a try.

Now stop whingeing.

 

[Aragorn]

I wouldnt have called it a try.

That would mean everytime someone dislodges the ball from the player it should be play on..... no knock on... never happens....

 

[docbrown]

Harrigan has come out and said he never spoke to Ricky, which makes Ricky a lying merkin. I hope he has a few awkward questions to answer after this.

What's more likely

a) Stuart lied about it
b) Daily Telegraph lied about it

;-)

Did he play at the ball as it came off Farah's boot?

ANSWER - NO.

What do you think he was trying to do? Sweettalk the ball into grounding itself voluntarily?

:lol:

 

[docbrown]

I wouldnt have called it a try.

That would mean everytime someone dislodges the ball from the player it should be play on..... no knock on... never happens....

Bingo!

 

[gronkathon]

I would be willing to wager that will be in the "never awarded as a try again" category. Inglis' face told the story

 

[Karl]

What's more likely

a) Stuart lied about it
b) Daily Telegraph lied about it

;-)

[/FONT][/COLOR]

What do you think he was trying to do? Sweettalk the ball into grounding itself voluntarily?

:lol:

You gotta actually read a few posts and understand what someone has been saying before you latch on one line and go straight to sarcasm.

 

[Springs]

Was he playing at the ball?

ANSWER - YES

He was trying to ground it. That's playing at it. It's ridiculous what you are saying Karl. It's like saying if a player expects the ball to bounce forward, but it bounces back, he's not playing at it because it's not where he expected. It's a knock on in every game, every day of the week. You are too stubborn to admit you are wrong. Either that or you really don't understand the rules.

 

[Keffola]

Firstly, my opinion is Farah wasn't even trying use his feet to kick at the ball. He was just trying to put himself in between Inglis and the tryline. His foot is almost planted on the ground rather than up lashing out at the ball in Inglis' hand. Inglis in his act of attempting to plant the ball just happened to bump the ball against Farah's leg and ended up fumbling it. If Inglis had caught the ball before it landed, it would have been a try, but since it dribbled forward on the ground first its a knock on.

Secondly, any debate on whether Inglis' was "playing at the ball" is just stupid. Of course he was playing at the ball, he is attempting to score a try. He was in the exact same motion of attempting to score a try right throughout that moment.

And lastly, did anyone even check if Inglis was onside???? Watching the replay, he was off camera from the kick, but there is some doubt as to whether he actually was based on how fast he appeared onto the scene.

 

[Canard]

Oh now Farah, just "happened" to be in the vicinity??

Are you Craig Thomson?

 

[Springs]

At 1:20 in this video Broncos were awarded a penalty try against Melbourne in 2010 because the ball was kicked out of Yow Yeh's hands, he didn't even ground it afterwards. Funny thing is Gus says "Slater kicked it, which is an illegal play"

I guess the difference is YY dived over the line, which actually meant being kicked in the face was a possibility, but where do you draw the line with dangerous contact? He wasn't kicked in the face though, the ball was simply dislodged by a kick. Although this highlights package doesn't really show that.

See, Karl, this is an alright argument. It's possible it could be a penalty try if what Farah did was deemed illegal. But it's either a penalty try or a knock-on.

 

[age.s]

I love how QLDers are stating that things happened too fast for Inglis to be playing at the ball with his arm but slow enough for Farah to have time to play at the ball when Inglis was trying to put it down.

 

[Springs]

You dolt, the comments about "1000ths of a second and brain registry" go to whether he "played at the ball" - which requires intention. These are the Rules you dense merkin.

Did he play at the ball as it came off Farah's boot?

ANSWER - NO. He could not possibly have played at the ball as it came off Farah's boot.

WAS he playing the ball (ie, attempting to ground it) BEFORE Farah kicked it loose (illegally)? Yes. Is that relevant? NO. What he was doing BEFORE the ball is knocked loose is irrelevant. What matters is what he was doing AFTER the ball came of Farahs boot. It doesn't matter whether it came off GI's forearms because he did not play at it. What is so hard to understand?

:lol::lol::lol:

Show the rule about brain registry. Get your head out of the gutter. The Inglis knock on is always a knock on. Even if it is deemed a penalty try he still lost it although it was lost through an illegal act.

He was playing at the ball you idiot. It's the same as when a player tries to catch the ball with his hands and then comes off his arm. But 'oh no in the 1000th of a second from when the ball was a metre away to when it hit his arm his brain could not possibly have registered in time that the ball was going to end up in a different place from where he thought' (your logic by the way).

I would understand if you were arguing for a penalty try, but you are arguing that the video ref made the correct call lol which was one of the most insipid calls anyone has ever seen.

 

[Karl]

Was he playing at the ball?

ANSWER - YES

He was trying to ground it. That's playing at it. It's ridiculous what you are saying Karl. It's like saying if a player expects the ball to bounce forward, but it bounces back, he's not playing at it because it's not where he expected. It's a knock on in every game, every day of the week. You are too stubborn to admit you are wrong. Either that or you really don't understand the rules.

OK - this once I will deal with you needless attempts to give other examples that are not relevant.

if a player expects the ball to bounce forward, but it bounces back, he's not playing at it because it's not where he expected.

No - he was chasing a bouncing ball and trying to catch it. If he gets a bad bounce and knocks it forward, it's a knock on.

In this case Gi already HAS the ball in his hands, then ANOTHER PERSON kicked it loose.

You see the difference? Ok. Good.

 

[Karl]

:lol::lol::lol:

Show the rule about brain registry. Get your head out of the gutter. The Inglis knock on is always a knock on. Even if it is deemed a penalty try he still lost it although it was lost through an illegal act.

He was playing at the ball you idiot. It's the same as when a player tries to catch the ball with his hands and then comes off his arm. But 'oh no in the 1000th of a second from when the ball was a metre away to when it hit his arm his brain could not possibly have registered in time that the ball was going to end up in a different place from where he thought' (your logic by the way).

I would understand if you were arguing for a penalty try, but you are arguing that the video ref made the correct call lol which was one of the most insipid calls anyone has ever seen.

yeah, its exactly the same except for the bit where there is ANOTHER PERSON kicking the ball out of his hands. Other than that, yeah. exactly the same.


You're an idiot. I never mentioned "brain registry" - thats your butchery of my words because you're too dense to understand what I am saying. Reaction time is relevant because in order to form an intention and play at a ball that is kicked out of his hands and straight into his forearm he'd need to be operating in a different time space continuum to the rest of humanity. It's that ridiculous.

 

[Valheru]

Ok I'll type this slowly so you can understand.

He WAS trying to score a try.

THEN Farah dislodged the ball with his boot by kicking it out of GI's hands.

At this point GI is not playing at the ball any more. He WAS, he was trying to ground it, but then it was dislodged and he lost it.

The ball then left Farah's boot and hit GI's forearms and rolled in goal. For it to be a knock on, GI MUST have played at the ball AFTER it left Farah's boot.

Which he didn't. He couldn't have. Spiderman with his Spidey senses and Spidey reactions could not have played at that ball after it left Farahs boot.

And lets not forget that knocking the ball out of a try scorers hands with your boot is illegal and Gus Gould in on record to that effect in relation to the Bronco's try when Slater did it.

So EITHER way, its a try.

Now stop whingeing.

Wrong.

He was playing at the ball for the whole play. He didn’t somehow stop playing at the ball as you suggest.

IT WAS A KNOCK ON.

 

[Karl]

I love how QLDers are stating that things happened too fast for Inglis to be playing at the ball with his arm but slow enough for Farah to have time to play at the ball when Inglis was trying to put it down.

Actually whats funny is the NewSthWelchers who are saying that Farah didn't have time to play at it with his foot but GI had time to react to it coming off the foot, play at it and fumble it forward.

Farah was running in, he had plenty of time to see GI was picking up the ball and you don't have to be Einstein to work out where he's going to try to put it down. He tried to get his foot under it or knock it out of GI's hand with his boot, which apart from being illegal, dislodged the ball which was then dived on by GI.

All of this "it was a knock on because it hit his forearm" palava ignores the clear wording of the rule which says that he must have played at the ball. Played at the ball after Farah kicked it.

Are you really trying to suggest GI played at that ball AFTER Farah kicked it out of GI's hands and into GI's forearm?