Put this question to talkin sport, but probably too late for their deadlines. Maybe the club might challenge the decision.
Questions for Bill Harrigan - Disallowed Manly try in 27th minute
Could you put this question to Bill Harrigan:
Shane Hayne can be heard saying that the Manly try after a Foran strip was disallowed because Sutton decided that the ball had "gone forward into the Penrith player (Simmons) and then gone back". This means that the video ref, Sutton, has somehow determined that there was a gap between the ball and Simmons and then the ball hit Simmons. The problem is that the video never shows any such gap, and indeed shows that there wasn't ever any gap. Every player knows that putting pressure on a ball can cause it to pop up in the opposite direction, with spin.
Stuart Raper has now given a very different and contradictory explanation to Sutton's. He says the spin of the ball proves that the ball was always travelling towards the opposition goal-line. http://admin.nrl.com/official-view-carne...fault.aspx The first problem with this explanation is that the ball landed a metre in front of Simmons, not behind him which would be the case if Raper's explanation held. The second problem with this explanation is that the spin of the ball does not indicate the direction of movement - they are two very different forces. The third problem with this explanation is that anyone can create this spin by simply putting pressure on the ball causing it to pop out in the opposite direction.
When players apply forward force onto a ball with the tackling arm, and the ball pops out, it would be ridiculous to conclude a knock on by the tackler because of a spin of the ball. For the same reason, Stuart Raper's conclusion is equally ludicrous.
Will Bill Harrigan provide a proper explanation for the decision or advise it was an incorrect call, especially given that benefit of any doubt goes to the attacking team?