Nofoaluma was short

[SeaEagleRock8]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmqnnpxoOT0

 

[globaleagle]

^still can't see any questioning of the ref's integrity in that well thought out repose to the question.

So far we need a gallop apology a 10k refund, and a public execution regarding last year's GF (grand final jethro)



"Execution"....... too much?

 

[RiverEagle]

Sometimes you'd like to be able to give a post more than one like!

I love the raw pride and emotion Tooves shows there. Don't like seeing him so frustrated, but it was inspiring (and a bit funny) and worth 10k!

Sadly, you could just re-run it every week appropriately now.

I know we got a 50/50 our way this time.

I still dread the very possible ''pink tide'' deciding our fate somewhere down the line.

 

[Fluffy]

Thought it was a try at the game

watched the replay, thought it was a try

looked at the still, thought it was a try.

hand never left the ball as it rolled onto the line, it wasn't just a finger nail like in the past.

Put the manly test on it and I thought it was worthy of illegal threats to Hayne over.

Fluffy, the ball rolled, that constitutes a knock on whether his had left it or not, without the ground there he has no control, same as cricket, you can't use the ground to control the ball, doing so is a knock on. It's like a player rolling it forward in a play the ball.

If the ball didn't roll and and he was controlling it then it's fine but in this case it was rolled as Hayne said live and that is why it was ruled a knock on and we had a scrum rather than a penalty for double movement, play the ball or 20m restart it was knocked on a few centimeters from the line and therefor scrum on the 10m mark.

Anyway bring Nofoaluma's height into the debate just seems wrong

without the ground there the ball does not roll, he had control. Losing the ball after putting it down on the line or the in goal is always awarded a try.

please don't tell me you want another change in rulings

 

[Dan]

Thought it was a try at the game

watched the replay, thought it was a try

looked at the still, thought it was a try.

hand never left the ball as it rolled onto the line, it wasn't just a finger nail like in the past.

Put the manly test on it and I thought it was worthy of illegal threats to Hayne over.

Fluffy, the ball rolled, that constitutes a knock on whether his had left it or not, without the ground there he has no control, same as cricket, you can't use the ground to control the ball, doing so is a knock on. It's like a player rolling it forward in a play the ball.

If the ball didn't roll and and he was controlling it then it's fine but in this case it was rolled as Hayne said live and that is why it was ruled a knock on and we had a scrum rather than a penalty for double movement, play the ball or 20m restart it was knocked on a few centimeters from the line and therefor scrum on the 10m mark.

Anyway bring Nofoaluma's height into the debate just seems wrong

without the ground there the ball does not roll, he had control. Losing the ball after putting it down on the line or the in goal is always awarded a try.

please don't tell me you want another change in rulings

Rolling the ball forward against the ground anywhere in the field is always a knock on always has been always will be. He was short and rolled it forward from field of play to in goal. That is a knock on and that is what was awarded.

Had he put it down on the line and rolled it then it's a try.

There is a difference between holding it and it sliding and rolling it.

The same as a player rolling it towards them hand on it or not if you use the ground to control it it will be a knock on. No rule change needed as it's the current and correct rule

 

[maxta]

Seen it as just short...then rolled foward with no real control onto the stripe....seen them go both ways on these.
Best example I recall was Taufua I think against Sharks or Cows in a final last year??
Almost identical & given the green light that went our way.
The tough ruling is to adjudicate what is classified as control, because it did roll away from a particular head on angle, yet his arm was still on it...
All in all it was always gunna be a Seaeagles smashup, so lets give them that 1 & take the Buhrer 1....

 

[Technical Coach]

To me anything that looks short or just on the line should be benefit of the doubt to the defending team.

Over the tryline benefit of the doubt to the attacking team.

Might help if the line was a different colour say red as a paused white line and ball can blend closer than it really is---mind you probably two different colours would blend together so throw that idea out.

 

[Arko-admirer]

From TV replays I thought it was grounded short and rolled onto the line (with dubious control). I asked about the legality of this with a previous try against us that I thought was rolled over the line.
Anyway, I think it was not a clear try from replays. Even Ray Warren, in the inerminable discussion, said something along the lines of "almost certainly". So it is up to the on-field officials to make that call and they did.

 

[RiverEagle]

It was one of those ultra-rare times when you could argue legitimately either way (as has obviously happened).

I still believe it was no-try; but if it had been us in a final or grand final where it really mattered, I reckon I'd argue it WAS a try.

That's footy folks.

 

[southsideeagle]

It looked like a try to me. Landed short and continuous motion took it over (rolled?). Actually I'm more confident that Robbie Farrah was correct in his appraisal of the ref.

 

[Fluffy]

Seen it as just short...then rolled foward with no real control onto the stripe....seen them go both ways on these.
Best example I recall was Taufua I think against Sharks or Cows in a final last year??
Almost identical & given the green light that went our way.
The tough ruling is to adjudicate what is classified as control, because it did roll away from a particular head on angle, yet his arm was still on it...
All in all it was always gunna be a Seaeagles smashup, so lets give them that 1 & take the Buhrer 1....

Shhh - Dan said otherwise

 

[The Who]

Gee. I've never heard so much fuss about a try which, had it been scored, would still have resulted in a 28 points loss.
There must be a hell of a lot of Tigpie fans in the media to keep this issue on the boil.

 

[bones]

From the Tigers website:

David Nofoaluma

Clubs: Wests Tigers
Born: 28 Nov 1993
**Height: 180 cm.
Weight: 98 kg.

 

[Dan]

Seen it as just short...then rolled foward with no real control onto the stripe....seen them go both ways on these.
Best example I recall was Taufua I think against Sharks or Cows in a final last year??
Almost identical & given the green light that went our way.
The tough ruling is to adjudicate what is classified as control, because it did roll away from a particular head on angle, yet his arm was still on it...
All in all it was always gunna be a Seaeagles smashup, so lets give them that 1 & take the Buhrer 1....

Shhh - Dan said otherwise

Cheap shots aside fluffy as you are being a dick, the fact it was ruled no try shows one thing, in this situation I'm right.

Keeping your arm on it is not controlling the ball, the cricket analogy works here, you can't use the ground to catch a ball it means you don't have control , without the ground the ball comes away from your arm or hand and that's a knock on.

 

[Jethro]

From the Tigers website:

David Nofoaluma

Clubs: Wests Tigers
Born: 28 Nov 1993
**Height: 180 cm.
Weight: 98 kg.

You're right bones, Nofoaluma at 180cm is nowhere near short

 

[Fluffy]

Seen it as just short...then rolled foward with no real control onto the stripe....seen them go both ways on these.
Best example I recall was Taufua I think against Sharks or Cows in a final last year??
Almost identical & given the green light that went our way.
The tough ruling is to adjudicate what is classified as control, because it did roll away from a particular head on angle, yet his arm was still on it...
All in all it was always gunna be a Seaeagles smashup, so lets give them that 1 & take the Buhrer 1....

Shhh - Dan said otherwise

Cheap shots aside fluffy as you are being a dick, the fact it was ruled no try shows one thing, in this situation I'm right.

Keeping your arm on it is not controlling the ball, the cricket analogy works here, you can't use the ground to catch a ball it means you don't have control , without the ground the ball comes away from your arm or hand and that's a knock on.

Just because I have a different opinion does not make me a dick, you saying that makes you a dick.

How is cricket related - different sport, different rules. Rugby is a much closer sport with different rules that would change many rulings in league but we don't use their rules either.

So what you are saying is that the fact a ref makes a decision means it is right.

So refs get is right 100% of the time now, news to me.

It was a try in most cases, ref ****ed up yet again, something he has a habit of doing.

 

[Stevo]

Seen it as just short...then rolled foward with no real control onto the stripe....seen them go both ways on these.
Best example I recall was Taufua I think against Sharks or Cows in a final last year??
Almost identical & given the green light that went our way.
The tough ruling is to adjudicate what is classified as control, because it did roll away from a particular head on angle, yet his arm was still on it...
All in all it was always gunna be a Seaeagles smashup, so lets give them that 1 & take the Buhrer 1....

Shhh - Dan said otherwise

Cheap shots aside fluffy as you are being a dick, the fact it was ruled no try shows one thing, in this situation I'm right.

Keeping your arm on it is not controlling the ball, the cricket analogy works here, you can't use the ground to catch a ball it means you don't have control , without the ground the ball comes away from your arm or hand and that's a knock on.

I've noticed that too

 

[CussCuss]

The biggest issue is not sending it to the video ref, its easily close enough to need another look at, but he decided not to. Im not to fussed either way, its definitely debateable, I think it was a try myself, but not sending to the video ref when they will send any tiny little thing they feel like is completely unacceptable.

 

[Jethro]

The biggest issue is not sending it to the video ref, its easily close enough to need another look at, but he decided not to. Im not to fussed either way, its definitely debateable, I think it was a try myself, but not sending to the video ref when they will send any tiny little thing they feel like is completely unacceptable.

Yeah, why didn't he send it upstairs to the video ref? Aren't they supposed to now? Isn't that what KFC pay for to get their adverts during the game?

 

[Dan]

Seen it as just short...then rolled foward with no real control onto the stripe....seen them go both ways on these.
Best example I recall was Taufua I think against Sharks or Cows in a final last year??
Almost identical & given the green light that went our way.
The tough ruling is to adjudicate what is classified as control, because it did roll away from a particular head on angle, yet his arm was still on it...
All in all it was always gunna be a Seaeagles smashup, so lets give them that 1 & take the Buhrer 1....

Shhh - Dan said otherwise

Cheap shots aside fluffy as you are being a dick, the fact it was ruled no try shows one thing, in this situation I'm right.

Keeping your arm on it is not controlling the ball, the cricket analogy works here, you can't use the ground to catch a ball it means you don't have control , without the ground the ball comes away from your arm or hand and that's a knock on.

Just because I have a different opinion does not make me a dick, you saying that makes you a dick.

How is cricket related - different sport, different rules. Rugby is a much closer sport with different rules that would change many rulings in league but we don't use their rules either.

So what you are saying is that the fact a ref makes a decision means it is right.

So refs get is right 100% of the time now, news to me.

It was a try in most cases, ref ... up yet again, something he has a habit of doing.

It's not your opinion that makes you a dick, it is your passive agressive comments such as

"Shh Dan says otherwise" - that is a dick move and adds no validation to your opinion and adds nothing to the conversation.

Why is cricket relevant? Well because it is an analogy, you being what I assume is an intelligent person, should understand an analogy. The function of an analogy is to add clarity to a topic with a description that uses something other than the specific example being discussed.

In this point you can't seem to disengage from the event, and thus can't gain any clarity on the point.

Which is..

If you put the ball on the ground at any point on the field besides the in goal, and roll it forward with your hand or arm (note not slide maintaining control, but the ball moves both against the ground and your hand or arm) then it is a knock on. The only place on the field in which this is different is in the in goal, because once it touches the ground with control, it is a try and what happens after is academic.

So the specific case in point.

1 - The ball was placed down before the line, in the field of play (as suggested and indicated by the referee, and the video)
2 - The ball was rolled forward and moved both against the ground and along the players arm

This is therefore a knock on, and would be a knock on anywhere on the field.

Would I have been happy with it being awarded a try?
Yes

Would I be happy if it was ruled a no try if it were Manly?
I'd be a bit miffed but just as happy for it to be a no try

It was a true 50/50 it should have gone to the video ref, as a No try and I think on the evidence there that would have been upheld as a no try.

Overall I am happy with the decision and would have been happy with the decision no matter which way it went. Hayne actually made a call which we all want the refs to make more, the fact there is so much discussion around it is sad