1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

No bounce plus no separation equals a TRY

Discussion in 'Rugby League Forum' started by silvertail, Sep 21, 2013.

  1. silvertail

    silvertail Well-Known Member Premium Member

    +423 /9
    Yes, the Watmough try was only marginally backwards, but it was still a try.

    Yes, Gallen made a great run but you can't expect a marker to be grabbed and then tackled and get away with it.

    And on Taufua, refs have made thousands of inconsistent decisions over the years, Surely a no bounce, no separation rule is simple enough for a video ref to use as a guide?

    KOMORI Born and bred an Eagle

    +3,663 /62
    With the way the rules are currently structured, once the on-field referee makes a call (be it try or no try) the video ref then must find CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE to overturn the original decision.

    That's why Jorge's try was allowed, and also the reason why Matai's was disallowed a few weeks back.

    It's a far from perfect system.... But apparently all the teams play by them...
  3. HappilyManly

    HappilyManly MWTS Premium Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

    +15,503 /326
    What's the Buzz:
    SINNER II: The NRL finals refereeing. Jorge Taufua’s “try” for Manly on Friday night was a bigger farce than the seven-tackle try the week before. :p

    Ridiculous comment, but it is funny how Manly is such a thorn to the obtuse:cool:
  4. castle eagle

    castle eagle Well-Known Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

    +847 /7
    most teams anyway:-/
  5. The Wheel

    The Wheel Well-Known Member

    +2,280 /74
    Poor Buzz just another vindictive rant against Manly
  6. HoldenV8

    HoldenV8 Well-Known Member

    +8,996 /153
    Isn't the biggest farce the fact that Rothfield has a job as a 'journalist'?

    I watched the highlights on the NRL website this morning and I still think Jorge got the ball down. If it was against us I'll admit I couldn't argue against it. In slow-motion you can see Jorge's hand is still connected to the ball when it hits the ground. Was Rothfield looking at it through the bottom of his beer cup?

    As for Choc's try....the ball clearly went backwards off Matai's arm and Choc was behind him. That is a try.
  7. Kiwi Eagle

    Kiwi Eagle Moderator Staff Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

    +2,795 /35
    The separation rubbish that Harrigan brought in was tossed out with him at the end of last year
    • Like Like x 1
    • MWSE

      MWSE Well-Known Member

      +335 /2
      I didn't think it was a try. But hey, who am I to turn down a gift try! Its worth it just to watch Buzz squirm.
    • 6/71

      6/71 Well-Known Member

      +207 /3
      That was no try for mine. I would be filthy if that was awarded against us.
    • God

      God Well-Known Member

      +451 /10
      Regardless we didn't kick the goal and still would have one by two, and the biggest face was gordon's shoulder charge going un-penalised when he was likely to score as gordon wouldn't have stopped him any other way.

      MANLY4LIFE Well-Known Member

      +670 /10
      IMO it was no try ,but ALOT worse have been given ,to say it was a worse decision then a complete f-up giving a 7th tackle try shows your bias to your peptide infested trophy-less team you joke of a reporter tossfield .....

      Ps no try manly 20-18 peptides

      Back to your bottle champ......but be careful it's messing with your math
      • Like Like x 1
      • Pittwater Legend

        Pittwater Legend Well-Known Member

        +1,007 /31
        I thought it was a no try as well but the fact that there was never any separation saved us. The front angle was the the angle that was the least favourable for us. When the ball hit the ground Taufua's hand was completely off the ball but a fraction of his forearm was still on it.

        That said I do remember when Harrigan made a video ref decision to award a try against us when Gasnier had clearly dropped the ball before grounding it.
      • Jatz Crackers

        Jatz Crackers Moderator Staff Member

        +1,298 /7
        I would accept either judgement on this one.

        Under the older concept "must have control of the ball" I probably wouldnt give it but under the newer "must see separation" rule I would probably give it.

        In any case, who really cares what Rothfield has to say.
      • simon64

        simon64 Well-Known Member Premium Member

        +2,288 /29
        I thought it could have gone either way. I'm glad they awarded it but would have understood it being no try.

        But what no-one including the commentators failed to mention was that had it not be awarded, there game should have restarted with a line dropout. Beau Ryan actually played at the ball which was what caused the "separation" to begin with.

        Anyone else notice that and how the Rabs and Gus ignored it ?


        +2,194 /103
        Where the rule about conclusive evidence falls down is not in the Tofua scenario where the try is actually seen by on field officials, it's when they are unsighted (Matai try) and they rule "no try" when they would really have no idea because they couldn't see.
      • Masked Eagle

        Masked Eagle Well-Known Member

        +976 /0
        We got lucky with Jorge's try. That being said, we were due for some.
      • Bradza

        Bradza Well-Known Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

        +664 /8
        Spot on - his wrist/forearm forced the ball and that is why it didn't bounce away.
      • Frank

        Frank Well-Known Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

        +1,373 /27
        I know they got rid of BOTD but if this isn't a definition of exactly that then I don't know what is.

        It's BOTD 2.0. The only difference is it goes both ways. Try or no try.
      • southsideeagle

        southsideeagle Well-Known Member Premium Member

        +495 /13
        I thought it was a try but it was a close call I could appreciate it being a "no try". My reasoning was that it appeared to be in, it appeared to be over the try line and there appeared no separation between the arm and ball.The next part is did he have control of the ball? Only to the fact that he had downward force on it... ever so slight. If he had landed on it with his chest what control would he have had? No out, over the try line, no knockon TRY. The true test for me is if it was the other way and against us what would I have said.."TRY".
      • ssar

        ssar Well-Known Member

        +218 /4
        Jorge's was a try - the refs have called plenty of tries with little or no control whilst only a small amount of contact and downward pressure appeared evident, over the past few years.

        And prior to that, benefit of the doubt to the attacking team supports it as well.

        Great effort!

      Share This Page