Try or No Try

[leaguerefaus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vsIZSjUNrI

Huge call either way, with the decision deciding the match.

 

[TNT88]

For rugby league, I'm not sure. I had a scan of their rules and couldn't find the relevant section: http://www.nrl.com/portals/nrl/RadEditor/Documents/NRL Rules book 2013FINAL.pdf

For rugby union we have this checklist:

22.1 (b) Player presses down on the ball. A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the in-goal and the player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck inclusive.

- is the ball on the ground?
- did the player press down on it his body/hand/arm?

One test I would apply for "pressing down" is, "did the ball's movement change because of the player's actions", if not, how could he be "pressing" on the ball?

So ignoring whether or not its on the ground, I think it is, I don't think he is pressing down on the ball. I gather this from the front angle, where the ball bounces as if it would have if he had not touched the ball, hence I'm saying I think the side angle creates a bit of an illusion in terms of the "grounding".

 

[Browner]

For rugby league, I'm not sure. I had a scan of their rules and couldn't find the relevant section: http://www.nrl.com/portals/nrl/RadEditor/Documents/NRL Rules book 2013FINAL.pdf

For rugby union we have this checklist:



- is the ball on the ground?
- did the player press down on it his body/hand/arm?

One test I would apply for "pressing down" is, "did the ball's movement change because of the player's actions", if not, how could he be "pressing" on the ball?

So ignoring whether or not its on the ground, I think it is, I don't think he is pressing down on the ball. I gather this from the front angle, where the ball bounces as if it would have if he had not touched the ball, hence I'm saying I think the side angle creates a bit of an illusion in terms of the "grounding".

That question is answered by physics ... A very low PSI is still pressure ....

To my eye, during slow mo, the distorted shape of his finger is the 'micro' clue.
Try !

The referees explantion that the ball was "rising" isn't backed up by the slow mo.... Which shows the fingertip pressure 'before' the ball rises.

 

[leaguerefaus]

[LAWS]Grounding the Ball includes:
a. Placing the ball on the ground with hand or hands, wrist or forearm
b. Exerting a downward pressure on the ball in contact with the ground
c. Dropping on the ball and covering it with the front part of the body above the waist and below the neck.


A player who has had possession or touches/touched the ball and knocks the ball forward must regain possession
(catch, hold or grip) prior to the ball hitting the ground, another player, goal post or cross bar .


For the ball to be deemed grounded, pressure must be applied by the player’s fingers, hand, wrist, forearm or torso so as to create a reasonable influence on the plane of the ball including the spin, rotation, momentum or bounce.

[/LAWS]
I wouldn't say his finger had a "reasonable influence on the plane of the ball including the spin, rotation, momentum or bounce". But still... such a tight call to end a fabulous game.

 

[TNT88]

Agreed, this is another area of law (including in-touch) that league defines much better.

 

[winchesterref]

It doesn't help the overall impression for the general public that there were non-neutral officials, especially in a tight call like this

 

[Ricardowensleydale]

Looked like a try to me.
The rules say "including" spin, rotation etc.

 

[Browner]

Looked like a try to me.
The rules say "including" spin, rotation etc.

Yep, notwithstanding that the referees words of on the way up, weren't correct.

As an aside....

Law has always been drafted by the legally minded to include words like "reasonable" "intentional" etc .... It then allows the " fee" clock to tick longer whilst their profession debate the grey area it creates , among themselves ...

 

[RobLev]

Yep, notwithstanding that the referees words of on the way up, weren't correct.

As an aside....

Law has always been drafted by the legally minded to include words like "reasonable" "intentional" etc .... It then allows the " fee" clock to tick longer whilst their profession debate the grey area it creates , among themselves ...

If you wants black and white, you gets black and white - but be very careful what you wish for...

Take this example; take the word "reasonable" out of the rule, and tell me whether this was a try.

 

[Dixpat]

The decision was a crock of ....

Finger clearly on ball, ball on ground & finger event bent backwards which is very hard to do if one isn't pushing it against something

 

[Dixpat]

In my considered view the ref's decision making in this game was "anti the Poms" and as jonesp92 noted above it ain't a good look when the ref is from the other country.

I don't think England received a single penalty in the second half yet there were numerous times when the ref could be heard telling the Australian tackler/s to get their hands off the ball in the PTB - a penalisable offence

Whenever Aussie needed a leg up in the 2nd half they received a penalty because the England player/s "were holding down too long" yet the same standard wasn't applied against the Australians

I'm not accusing the ref of cheating or bias but it does show that circumstances subconsciously affect decision making in humans

Reminds me that Miandad was never given out LBW in Pakistan by a Pakistani umpire during his international career!

 

[4eyesbetter]

Much as the Aussies can go and do four-letter words to themselves; no try, 20 restart.

There'll always be a problem with neutral officials as long as there are only two professional leagues; Thierry Alibert was still always a Super League bloke and Henry Perenara will always be an NRL bloke. Unless it gets to the point where the entire England squad is taking the Aussie dollar, which might not be beyond the realms of possibility.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

In my considered view the ref's decision making in this game was "anti the Poms" and as jonesp92 noted above it ain't a good look when the ref is from the other country.

I don't think England received a single penalty in the second half yet there were numerous times when the ref could be heard telling the Australian tackler/s to get their hands off the ball in the PTB - a penalisable offence

Whenever Aussie needed a leg up in the 2nd half they received a penalty because the England player/s "were holding down too long" yet the same standard wasn't applied against the Australians

I'm not accusing the ref of cheating or bias but it does show that circumstances subconsciously affect decision making in humans

Reminds me that Miandad was never given out LBW in Pakistan by a Pakistani umpire during his international career!

Who was the only father and son partnership to open the batting for Pakistan?

Miandad.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

The RH "try" was a piss poor decision. I'm not sure if Hall's post match interview (it would have been a try in the SL) was a dig at the home TMO or we are back in the land of "international rules" bollocks which seems to raise its head every time we lose to Australia ie every game.

Notwithstanding the end it was a great game (only saw highlights) to watch. England manged to butcher a few chances which is never good against the likes of Australia.

What was the reason for the kits? It looked like Rotherham Phoenix v Old Modernians in Yorkshire 3 refereed by Alfredo di Stefano (look him up kids)

 

[Ian_Cook]

That was a try IMO.

The loose ball only requires downward pressure.

[LAWS]b. Exerting a downward pressure on the ball in contact with the ground[/LAWS]

1. The England player's finger is bent back, indicatiiong that pressure is being placed on the ball

2. The ball is clearly in contact with the ground.


I cannot see how a try was not awarded when this was a try

 

[Ian_Cook]

What was the reason for the kits? It looked like Rotherham Phoenix v Old Modernians in Yorkshire 3 refereed by Alfredo di Stefano (look him up kids)

100th anniversary of the "Rourke's Drift Test"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1914_Great_Britain_Lions_tour_of_Australia_and_New_Zealand

Maroon and blue are the original colours of Australia, a combination of NSW and Queensland colours

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

,

100th anniversary of the "Rourke's Drift Test"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1914_Great_Britain_Lions_tour_of_Australia_and_New_Zealand

Maroon and blue are the original colours of Australia, a combination of NSW and Queensland colours

Cheers Ian.

Thank God we didn't have to listen to them sing Men of Harlech after the final whistle. :biggrin:

 

[Dickie E]

Try for me

 

[menace]

In my considered view the ref's decision making in this game was "anti the Poms" and as jonesp92 noted above it ain't a good look when the ref is from the other country.

I don't think England received a single penalty in the second half yet there were numerous times when the ref could be heard telling the Australian tackler/s to get their hands off the ball in the PTB - a penalisable offence

Whenever Aussie needed a leg up in the 2nd half they received a penalty because the England player/s "were holding down too long" yet the same standard wasn't applied against the Australians

I'm not accusing the ref of cheating or bias but it does show that circumstances subconsciously affect decision making in humans

Reminds me that Miandad was never given out LBW in Pakistan by a Pakistani umpire during his international career!

Contradiction in terms?

Ps. Try. Poms were robbed. Without TMO I can understand the decision, with TMO and not to check it was when that close is a big error. Ref will be sent back to elementary reffing school.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Message to S Lancaster. It's still not too late to give Ryan Hall a ring.:wink: