Boyd Cordner

[Rooster_6]

Not that it would've mattered but that ball had to touch some part of the line.

[The Skeez]

We wuz wobbed

[Easts75]

I think it was a no try, just like Murrays should have been for them

[Thirteen]

He didn’t have control so I agree with the decision.

[ROC181]

He didn’t have control so I agree with the decision.

Should have seen the try that was awarded to Jake Turbo today...worse than Boyds.

[Nathan Aboud]

It was a 50/50 call, although Boyd's body language gave it away.

I can be happy with that decision. It was slippery though but a game changer for sure..

[stephenj]

we didnt get too many 50/50 calls all night with the souths fan and his whistle! certainly seemed and felt like a stitch up to have him out there tonight?i suppose the nrl darlings and wayne needed all the help they could get?

[ism22]

Not that it would've mattered but that ball had to touch some part of the line.

In full speed I had no doubt. However, I reckon they got that one right after seeing it in slo-mo.

That said, IMO the knock-on call has to be revisited. Last season I reckon the head ref held a conference and was like 'think about it... is it a knock-on if a guy's juggling the ball and an opposition player takes a swing at it? YES!! If you read the rules this is technically a knock-on so start calling em!'

IMO this has led to a negative reading of knock-ons whereby defending players are rewarded for all attempts to destabilise the ball and tries are disallowed as soon as an opposition player gets a hand to the ball. I reckon this is wrong and that it would be commonsense to say 'he was trying to steal the ball so no it wasn't a fumble... it was a failed steal... try/possession awarded to the attacking player'.

I don't reckon you should get rewarded for dislodging the ball or swinging your arm at it in competition while they are gathering it. Players should have to successfully strip the ball (like Latrell - what a frigging gun!!!) Otherwise, they've knocked it on in my books (i.e. defending player has knocked on) because they've punched the ball forward (intentionally) and it has touched the attacking olayer (who has regained possession).

Alas, this is not how it works, so I agree with the onfield call. Cords did not score a try.

[busted chook]

I dont have a problem with it being a no try. What i was confused with is that you could see burgess playing at the ball to stop the try and knocking it out. I thought the rule was if the defending team knock the ball out in the act of stopping a try that the attacking team got the ball back?Hoping someone can clear it up for me.