Tweet
Maybe Anasta's try in 2010 set a precedent, seemed to be a very similar situation, ball stripped out by the defenders legs, ruled play on, what do people think?
-
I support two NRL teams, the Roosters and whoevers playing Souths -
The questions are though, did Farrah actually strike out at the ball? Did Inglis knock the ball on after contact was made?Originally posted by witty92 View Post... -
-
What I don't understand is the inconsistency in what is played at and what isn't. If Inglis is ruled not to have played at the ball after it was knocked out (whether delibrately or not), what makes it different from anyone supposedly playing at the ball when knocking it down in effecting a tackle? This is an honest question, apparently I don't know the difference.Comment
-
IMO the difference is that Soward came sliding in and made a deliberate play at the ball, where as Farrah appeared to be coming in trying to make a tackle to prevent Inglis from scoring. Inglis dropped it cold & has pretty much admitted as much. Also as others have suggested there was more than a hint of a knock on after Inglis lost possession.Originally posted by witty92 View PostOriginally posted by turk-283Comment
-
Slater knocked on when the ball was coming down either way. Watch carefully, it actually propels about 2cm forward.Comment
-
No precedent was set in thet game.Players have still been getting pulled up for running around the grandstand to score tries...Originally posted by witty92 View PostComment
-
Exactly why it must be called on a knock on as it contradicts the countless examples whenever a defender doesn't play at the ball but it touches him when effecting a tackle and it's called zero tackle.Originally posted by RWB23 View Post
Vidiots simply can't be wrong on calls like this any more and Harrigan blames the rule book for that, **** the rule book Harrigan coach some common sense.Comment
-
-
Farah DID play at the ball (his foot changes direction) but I think Inglis was the last to touch it before it hit the ground. Hence, it WAS a knock on.Comment
-
I thought his foot could have changed directions as he was running towards the ball but instinctively changed direction and was wrong footed as he instead moved towards Inglis in order to reach out and tackle him.Originally posted by Juggler View Post...Comment
-
Have a look at where Farrah is looking at the time he connects with the ball (the side on shot from behind shows this), he is not looking at the ball rather at Inglis ..... you would think if he is playing at the ball, his head would be down looking at the ball.
Besides, I also think GI knocked on after the ball hit Farrah's foot.
But this try shows what is bad about RL in the 00's. The ball carrier no longer has the onus of ball security. You see it everytime a player loses the ball, they all whinge that it was knocked out of their grasp, whether it was or not. Players no longer lose the ball, they have it stolen, knocked out or taken from their grasp by a defender.
The stripping rule was meant to clean up the tackles when it was introduced, but it has manifested into a scourge of the modern game !Comment
-
If it looks like a knock on - 95% of the time, it is a knock on.
Then again, this is the same referee that awarded 'that' Gasnier try.Comment
Comment