Burns no try

[PJ]

Can somebody please tell me why this wasn't a try. I was of the understanding the referees were going to introduce some commonsense to this rule and judging by the weekend decisions I thought they had...that was until last night.
Obviously the game was already won more or less but just the same no one I was watching it with could see anything wrong with it???

 

[Nutzcraw]

It's because G. Stewart was "loitering" in the defensive line... if he had of gone through or ran back to our side it would have been fine.

I think it was a try for the simple fact that Hannant had every oppurtunity to tackle burns without coming in contact with Stewart... he chose to run into Stewart therefore it should have been his fault and a Manly try.

Oh well, lucky it didn't cost us the game.

 

[PJ]

it's a joke it will get to the point where players won't bother trying those moves becasue they will keep getting pulled up for b/s reasons like was the case last night.

 

[Dan]

Whether he was going to make the tackle or not wasnt the point it was that he was denied the opportunity. However I think common sense needs to come into it

 

[The Insomniac]

Unfortunately sense is'nt common.

 

[clontaago]

He was only denied the opportunity through his own fault. As Daley said, he had ample opportunity to go left or right, but chose to run into Stewart.

It should have been a try.

 

[Guest]

Hannant is a fat slug and wouldn't have got to Burns anywway.

They have created a huge problem with this now as any player in defence will simply try to run into one of the decoy runners now and get the try dissallowed.

 

[Crushercleal]

You can't have players loitering in THEIR line. I think that's fair enough. Stewart (or whoever it was) made no attempt to get back into our line. The onus should be on Stewart, not Hannant.

 

[byso]

I agree with Crusher. To be honest I'd blame Burns he should know the rules by now. Could've run toward the posts away from Glen if he was a quick thinker.

 

[Dan]

I agree with Crusher. To be honest I'd blame Burns he should know the rules by now. Could've run toward the posts away from Glen if he was a quick thinker.

or he could have run the gap.

**** byso, you would have done well to pick up the ball witht he pace of your thinking.

Glenn's fault not Burns

 

[fLIP]

Yeah, while I understand what the referees were getting at, it creates almost a catch 22 situation.

Considering in Rugby League that you MUST pass backwards, there is always going to be a player who is closer to the line than the ball runner in a situation like last nights.

Now, Glen Stewart didn't pass the ball and was a decoy runner, however, he also didn't complete his run by moving into the defensive line. He stopped his run meters short of interfering with anyone and after stopping the defense line that was pushing up caused him to be in the middle of it.

Considering he did not move to obstruct anyone, Burns didn't run behind him and the Broncos player made the choice to run into Stewart instead of either side it should have been awarded a try.

 

[DSM5]

Yep, we would have an 8 point gap rather than a 2. ( which in this competition might be crucial at the end)

 

[mellonhead]

You should have listened in on the conversation between Des and David Gallop after the game, did know so many words started with F. Des basically told him he had wasted his time going the the meeting to change the intereptation.