The No Try

The_Doc
Member
Member
Posts: 843
Joined: Sat 03 Oct, 2009 11:18 am
Location: Central Coast
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 6 times

Re: The No Try

Unread post by The_Doc » Fri 08 May, 2015 10:30 pm

Shocking decision was a try all day long, also thought Topou's first try his foot caught a bit of chalk. Had that have been Nagaima would have been no try we were thrashed anyway made no difference.


User avatar
Geo.
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 25168
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 10:55 pm
Location: Sandy Point NSW.
Has liked: 258 times
Been liked: 397 times

Unread post by Geo. » Fri 08 May, 2015 10:57 pm

Didn't matter to the result but even the Rorter supporters sorrounding me said it was a TRY...
Ivan's Laws

1. You are either on the Bus or you are off..
2. The Star of the Team is the Team
3. Be the player your teammates want to play with..
Tiger Watto wrote:
Fri 03 Nov, 2017 8:07 am
Geo nailed it...

User avatar
jirskyr
Member
Member
Posts: 4895
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 12:00 pm
Has liked: 125 times
Been liked: 134 times

Unread post by jirskyr » Sat 09 May, 2015 12:08 am

simonthetiger wrote:Technically no try.....in reality a try every day of the week.
I don't even see it being technically a try.

A bomb is defused when you come down with complete and full control of the ball after leaving from your own in-goal.

Lawrence already has the ball more than half away before they both touch down, at which point he pulls away with the footy.

How Aubusson can be judged to have had control at any point is complete rubbish.

100% wrong decision and Archer needs to come clean. They are lucky it had no bearing on the game.

Fumbles
Member
Member
Posts: 439
Joined: Mon 16 Jan, 2012 10:56 am
Location: Brisbane

Unread post by Fumbles » Sat 09 May, 2015 12:14 am

It has been so long since Lawrence scored the ref just assumed it wasn't a try.

User avatar
NJLM78
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 2641
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 1:51 pm
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 4 times

Unread post by NJLM78 » Sat 09 May, 2015 12:25 am

If that doesn't happen in the in goal area, but say one metre out. Lawrence goes for the ball, its one on one and he comes up with it. Wouldn't the tackle count then restart for the Tigers? Yet in goal it is considered a 20m restart for the Roosters.

Should have been a try.

It didn't cost us the game but 22-6 may have given the Tigers some hope of keeping the scoreboard a bit closer.


Tony33
Member
Member
Posts: 1219
Joined: Tue 18 Mar, 2014 5:21 pm

Unread post by Tony33 » Sat 09 May, 2015 12:28 am

Fumbles wrote:It has been so long since Lawrence scored the ref just assumed it wasn't a try.
:roll
2015 - The Year The Dynasty Began...

PYMBLEPETE
Member
Member
Posts: 1045
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 9:15 pm
Been liked: 2 times

Unread post by PYMBLEPETE » Sat 09 May, 2015 12:49 am

jirskyr wrote:
simonthetiger wrote:Technically no try.....in reality a try every day of the week.
I don't even see it being technically a try.

A bomb is defused when you come down with complete and full control of the ball after leaving from your own in-goal.

Lawrence already has the ball more than half away before they both touch down, at which point he pulls away with the footy.

How Aubusson can be judged to have had control at any point is complete rubbish.

100% wrong decision and Archer needs to come clean. They are lucky it had no bearing on the game.
That is exactly right; never had control.

Tuiaki Chicken Wings
Member
Member
Posts: 525
Joined: Sun 09 Mar, 2014 7:16 pm

Unread post by Tuiaki Chicken Wings » Sat 09 May, 2015 12:55 am

GNR4LIFE wrote:Terrible decision, but wouldn't have changed the result.
Doesn't change the result yes, however gives us a sniff. Whether we did anything with it, thats for another day.

sunshine coast tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 1070
Joined: Tue 16 Mar, 2010 5:40 pm
Location: Back in Sydney

Unread post by sunshine coast tiger » Sat 09 May, 2015 5:11 am

Was a totally wrong decision but you expect nothing else from the inept onfield and video referees of the NRL. Both players had the ball in the air and when they hit the ground Lawrence had the ball and scored the try. 100% wrong decision that had no affect on the overall game.

goldcoast tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 5461
Joined: Sat 12 Apr, 2014 5:42 pm
Has liked: 38 times
Been liked: 66 times

Unread post by goldcoast tiger » Sat 09 May, 2015 5:31 am

Under that ruling. Does it now mean that you can jump for the ball , drop it on the way down, and still be considered to have taken the ball ?? Same thing.
Has to be the dumbest decision for a long time.

sunshine coast tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 1070
Joined: Tue 16 Mar, 2010 5:40 pm
Location: Back in Sydney

Unread post by sunshine coast tiger » Sat 09 May, 2015 5:58 am

For mine they need to seriously re-write the rule book soon. It should read a bomb is caught when a player with full control of the ball lands in the ingoal with both feet on the ground, simple. Should even have a part clarifying what happens if their is contested mid air ball and state the player landing with possession of the ball has the advantage. Lawrence was not tackling a player in air he was contesting for a ball in the air and won, should have been a try under any rule.

User avatar
innsaneink
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 25344
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 9:49 pm
Location: ...ahead of you....
Has liked: 280 times
Been liked: 225 times

Unread post by innsaneink » Sat 09 May, 2015 7:09 am

What annoyed me most was how Horsehead was so quick to rule no try.
Garbage decision but as others have said we were flogged so it'll get swept under the rug.
Losing interest in NRL more and.more with this incompetence

Posted using RoarFEED Android 1.2.3

tig_prmz
Member
Member
Posts: 7912
Joined: Sat 03 Oct, 2009 10:32 pm
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 20 times

Unread post by tig_prmz » Sat 09 May, 2015 8:03 pm

Flippedy wrote:
southerntiger wrote:
tig_prmz wrote:Lol can't believe Lawrence actually score a try off a bomb. He's one of the worst when it comes to high balls.

Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0
Irony wasnt lost on me. Jumped higher than he has in 5 years.

Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0
Actually I've noticed Lawrence has been jumping high a lot this year, it's just the timing of his jumps that have been out.
i think it's more his hands tbh.. he seems very un coordinated in general when it comes to multijoint mvt imo..
My Round 1 Team 2018

1. lolo 2. noffa 3. suli 4. milne 5. fonua
6. reynolds 7. brooks
8. packer 9. ET 10. Twal
11. McQuen 12. Lawrence 13. Eiso
14. Matulino 15. McIllwrick 16. Sue 17. Aloiai
18. Marsters 19. Benji 20. Grant 21. K Naiqama
Next: Liddle, MCK, Felise, MWZ, Thompson, Rochow, Gamble

User avatar
Milky
Member
Member
Posts: 5092
Joined: Fri 29 Mar, 2013 7:08 pm
Has liked: 8 times
Been liked: 14 times

Unread post by Milky » Sat 09 May, 2015 10:40 pm

What annoyed me the most is that the on field referee ruled no try even though he didn't see what happened. The referee should be able to not give a call. The old system was better IMO.

Posted using RoarFEED Android 1.2.3

formerguest
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 3199
Joined: Fri 07 Jun, 2013 7:33 pm
Has liked: 233 times
Been liked: 76 times

Unread post by formerguest » Sun 10 May, 2015 6:19 am

innsaneink wrote:What annoyed me most was how Horsehead was so quick to rule no try.
Garbage decision but as others have said we were flogged so it'll get swept under the rug.
Losing interest in NRL more and.more with this incompetence

Posted using RoarFEED Android 1.2.3
Yep, the equine comparison gave me a chuckle, and whilst I obviously follow WT with a passion, the game overall has lost me a bit, but more so because of the interchange and resultant demise of skill. Hope there are significant changes in the number allowed asap.

Post Reply

Return to “Round 9: Wests Tigers vs Roosters”