The Joel Thompson NO Try ??

[maxta]

I have watched similar plays unfold in recent weeks and the ref and bunker, clearly state the lead runner has no impact on the play...so play on !!
What in this case did they do the old "He catches the ball inside the lead runner" ??
I personally like a simple case of common sense and in this instance, the defender Mau, had no interference and was actually the bloke Thompson beats back on the inside, after he had 100% opportunity to make the tackle.
This will continue to be a dogs breakfast and will resurface in a finals contest, possibly costing a side big time.

 

[Shoe1]

Agree, I was up that end of the field and saw it unfold live, Walker was so far away from Marty so no impact. The grab tackle by the parra player on Joel was woeful.

This came not long after the Garrick foot on the touch line no try, followed by the forward pass call to Parker (who regathered), so it felt like we couldn’t buy a try there for a while.

 

[Fibro Eagle]

The stupid part about this rule as well if Thompson got tackled or surrender’s in the tackle it’s play on
If they are going to say it’s black white it’s a penalty well it’s penalty at any stage when the player surrender’s or not

 

[Snake]

I know what you mean and as a Manly fan I was disappointed not to crack 40 but i think the best thing the NRL can do is make rules as black and white as possible.

I’m fine with the rule, I just want them to consistently enforce it. You could argue that Ma’u missed the tackle because he had to rush faster to his right than he would have had to, had he not been momentarily held up by the lead runner...probably not, but I think it’s a case of be careful what you wish for. Black and white rules are the best because when it is left to common sense, it rarely prevails.

 

[HappilyManly]

Being Refeeled by Horsehead

https://twitter.com/NRLonNine/status/1152847088306143232?s=19

 

[Woodsie]

It is pretty simple Maxta ..... when good backline tries like that are disallowed .... the game has lost the plot ....

Talk about encouraging boring football ...

 

[Chip and Chase]

We had 3 or 4 "tries" called back yesterday. I thought Takarangi knocked on for their 2nd try yesterday too - big screen view at ground not super clear though so may have been a fair call.

I don't mind the Thompson one being called back as long as they are consistent with the application of the rule - but from a common sense point of view there was zero interference from the lead runner so what is the point other than annoying the fans. The Nathan Brown one was similar yesterday, I'm sure you could have made a case for obstruction against us in that one too.

 

[Rackets]

You know there's really something wrong with the game and the rules when experts like John's, Sterlo and Lockyer all say it was a try....
Some teams are benefiting while others are not and it will cost a team dearly somewhere if not already.

 

[Fluffy]

no try ruling for most teams, I am ok with this.

 

[Waz13]

We had 3 or 4 "tries" called back yesterday. I thought Takarangi knocked on for their 2nd try yesterday too - big screen view at ground not super clear though so may have been a fair call.

I don't mind the Thompson one being called back as long as they are consistent with the application of the rule - but from a common sense point of view there was zero interference from the lead runner so what is the point other than annoying the fans. The Nathan Brown one was similar yesterday, I'm sure you could have made a case for obstruction against us in that one too.

Agree, we could have put 60 in them yesterday if we were a hair more polished in attack. Suli, reubs, Thompson and red all had try’s pulled back with line ball calls.

Takarangis was a try imo. I always look at it this way, if it was a manly player would I be calling a try? If we’d been in that position and it was taken off us, I would have blown up deluxe!

 

[The better Robbo]

Then the Eels try that bounced off Taufua, Taufua then chased him but the eels player ran behind his own man and Jorge had no shot at tackling him. Awarded a try, Again inconsistencies!!!
The walker one, the rule used to be if you were a certain distance behind your own player then it was play on but they changed it to make it more black and white. I tend to think if it looks like a try then its a try. The eels weren't even protesting the try.

 

[The Wheel]

Whilst the thommos try was a no try was probably a correct call as per the current rule at no stage was any player impended. Isn’t the rule to protect the defense from being impended?

The other rule that ****s me to tears is the shepherd rule whereby a player runs round/behind his teammate/s and 100% impends the defense- goes to ground (Dogs it) so no advantage is gained - and its play on....

Yet the team gets to continue their set and lot of times this is on the attacking zone so they obviously get some form of advantage.

Hopefully Annesley gets his rule review off the ground at seasons end. Then again consistency (and common sense) is overrated according to the Turd

 

[Budgie]

While we’re at it, has there ever been - in the entire history of the world including the backyard - a sport that changed rules so often?
Drives me nuts.

 

[EagleGT]

Logically, you would think that the first premise of any obstruction call should be that someone was actually obstructed! Not any more.

 

[MissKate]

The only consistency is that horsehead will never rule in Manly’s favour. He tried to find fault in everything for us yesterday and I honestly don’t even think he looked at some of the dodgy calls that went in parra’s favour. He is so unprofessional

 

[Woodsie]

While we’re at it, has there ever been - in the entire history of the world including the backyard - a sport that changed rules so often?
Drives me nuts.

What can you expect of a game run at the whim of the giggling adolescent girlfrinds of a CEO's daughter .....