Try or No Try

[RobLev]

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

For me, the problem is with this part of the rule:

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.

Yes, pressure was applied by the player's litle finger; that's absolutely clear. But did that pressure "create a reasonable influence on the plane of the ball"? For me: No. No try.

 

[Dixpat]

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.

But they did check it and TMO [Australian] denied it on the basis that the ball was going up when he touched it!!

 

[menace]

But they did check it and TMO [Australian] denied it on the basis that the ball was going up when he touched it!!

My bad...didn't see the game and just saw highlight on TV news and thought all the hoopla was that it was reported that it wasn't referred.

TMO will be sent back to TMO school.

Ps. Was just able to see the YouTube link on another device (YouTube is blocked on work PCs) I think the reaction of red #5 and his second attempt to ground it helped convince the the TMO that the player didn't think h3 forced it either.

I still think it should have been a try, but you can't say it was clear and obvious try!

 

[Ian_Cook]

For me, the problem is with this part of the rule:



Yes, pressure was applied by the player's litle finger; that's absolutely clear. But did that pressure "create a reasonable influence on the plane of the ball"? For me: No. No try.

Does it matter how much pressure was applied? Surely it only matters that pressure was applied while the ball was in contact with the ground

The only argument against I can see is that, if the ball continued to move up while the pressure was being applied, then the ball may not have been in contact with the ground. This is guesswork though. How to we know how much the ball was distorted after having bounced.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd2V4_FNMls

If this ball was a rugby ball, and an attacking player applied "pinky finger" pressure as the ball was in its expansion phase (from around 5-5½ sec in the video) would that be sufficient downward pressure to award a try even if the ball appeared to be travelling upwards?

 

[RobLev]

Does it matter how much pressure was applied? Surely it only matters that pressure was applied while the ball was in contact with the ground

...

In League, yes it does, apparently. It has to:

[LAWS]...create a reasonable influence on the plane of the ball including the spin, rotation, momentum or bounce[/LAWS]

From a NRL rule clarification that leaguerefaus quoted earlier. Unfortunately, however red and white tinted I make my glasses, I still can't see any such influence. Therefore, No Try.

 

[Dixpat]

In League, yes it does, apparently. It has to:

[LAWS]...create a reasonable influence on the plane of the ball including the spin, rotation, momentum or bounce[/LAWS]

From a NRL rule clarification that leaguerefaus quoted earlier. Unfortunately, however red and white tinted I make my glasses, I still can't see any such influence. Therefore, No Try.

So assuming the ball was stationary on the ground you would then say that the Billy Slater "try" in the photo above is a "no try" - have I got that correct?

 

[leaguerefaus]

Trying to decide on downward pressure and control from a photo is ridiculous.

If you want to go down that path, then surely you would have to agree that Inglis has also grounded the ball and thus Hall could not subsequently score.

 

[TNT88]

As has been mentioned, the player must apply a reasonable influence on the ball. If Greg Inglis try for the storm influenced the bounce of the ball, as he might have considering he is over the ball, then it is a try. In this case the ball bounced as if it would have if the English player didn't touch it.

This is a great test and it should be implemented in rugby union.

 

[RobLev]

So assuming the ball was stationary on the ground you would then say that the Billy Slater "try" in the photo above is a "no try" - have I got that correct?

It depends - what influence did the pressure have "on the plane of the ball"? If none, then League rules apparently say no try.

 

[Dixpat]

Trying to decide on downward pressure and control from a photo is ridiculous.

If you want to go down that path, then surely you would have to agree that Inglis has also grounded the ball and thus Hall could not subsequently score.

Sorry but the picture is too indistinct to comment on but the replays at the time showed that at no time did GI attempt to put downward pressure on the ball - his intent was to scoop it over the dead ball line

 

[leaguerefaus]

Sorry but the picture is too indistinct to comment on but the replays at the time showed that at no time did GI attempt to put downward pressure on the ball - his intent was to scoop it over the dead ball line

We seem to agree that a picture can't tell you anything about downward pressure

 

[OB..]

At least Union has the advantage that no sensible player would attempt to scoop the ball dead insead of touching it down :hap:

 

[4eyesbetter]

Only because he'd get a penalty try against, as I think Karmichael Hunt discovered a few years ago.

When it's legal, the higher-percentage play is surely to knock it dead; screw it up and the ball's probably still heading in the vague direction of the line and away from chasers, you might even get another go. Screw up trying to control the ball, and you're far more likely to leave it standing in-goal for the highest bidder.

 

[Browner]

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.

Removing "reasonable" makes non difference to this set of variables.

IMO the wording ought to be limited , thereafter eyesight ( or TMO review decides, all BoDoubt to attackers) .

limited to.....For the ball to be deemed grounded, pressure must be applied by the player’s fingers, hand, wrist, forearm or torso.

 

[leaguerefaus]

The opinions of three great refs of the past are below:

Greg McCallum, who refereed 12 years of first grade, including three grand finals and 14 Tests, said: “No, there wasn’t enough downward pressure. He certainly got a finger on the ball but there wasn’t enough force.

Ten-time grand final referee Bill Harrigan was short and sharp.

“No try,” he said.


Legendary referee Greg Hartley agreed.

“I don’t think it was a try,” Hartley said. “He didn’t ground the ball in my opinion. There certainly wasn’t enough evidence to award that a try. The grounding just wasn’t sufficient.”

 

[Browner]

The opinions of three great refs of the past are below:

Greg McCallum, who refereed 12 years of first grade, including three grand finals and 14 Tests, said: “No, there wasn’t enough downward pressure. He certainly got a finger on the ball but there wasn’t enough force.

Ten-time grand final referee Bill Harrigan was short and sharp.

“No try,” he said.


Legendary referee Greg Hartley agreed.

“I don’t think it was a try,” Hartley said. “He didn’t ground the ball in my opinion. There certainly wasn’t enough evidence to award that a try. The grounding just wasn’t sufficient.”

So, the Greg's need "Enough/sufficient"........ how much is that ??????

 

[leaguerefaus]

So, the Greg's need "Enough/sufficient"........ how much is that ??????

"so as to create a reasonable influence on the plane of the ball including the spin, rotation, momentum or bounce" presumably.

 

[Dixpat]

The opinions of three great refs of the past are below:

Greg McCallum, who refereed 12 years of first grade, including three grand finals and 14 Tests, said: “No, there wasn’t enough downward pressure. He certainly got a finger on the ball but there wasn’t enough force.

Ten-time grand final referee Bill Harrigan was short and sharp.

“No try,” he said.


Legendary referee Greg Hartley agreed.

“I don’t think it was a try,” Hartley said. “He didn’t ground the ball in my opinion. There certainly wasn’t enough evidence to award that a try. The grounding just wasn’t sufficient.”

So we have 3 ex Australian referees supporting the decision in favour of an Australian team by an Australian video ref and an Australian ref - is that really a surprise!

I am sure the Poms could roll out 3 from the other side which say it was a try

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

John Holdsworth - "Try"

Stuart Cummins - "Try"

Russell Smith - "Try"

:biggrin:

 

[RobLev]

So we have 3 ex Australian referees supporting the decision in favour of an Australian team by an Australian video ref and an Australian ref - is that really a surprise!

Reasone decisions which match the facts - unless you can see the Pom little finger actually having any influence on the ball?

I am sure the Poms could roll out 3 from the other side which say it was a try

Matters not - the question is whether the pressure had a reasonable influence on the plane of the ball...