Biggest double movement in 20 years

DBK
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun 18 Jun, 2017 1:58 pm
Has liked: 1 time

Re: Biggest double movement in 20 years

Unread post by DBK » Sun 18 Jun, 2017 4:03 pm

Swordy wrote:
Sun 18 Jun, 2017 2:19 pm
Really? He advances the ball after it touches the ground. It doesn't move forward at the same pace as the rest of his body with the momentum, it reaches the line because he pushes his arm forward. Only the bunker saw it different, both on field ref's said NO TRY.

"An attacking player whose momentum does not allow the ball to reach the try-line or in-goal after their ball-carrying arm touches the ground may not reach out to score if a defender is in contact with them"

If his arm carrying the ball stayed int he same position against his body, then it would not have reached the line with his momentum.

And lets just say you still disagree (and its opinion, so thats OK), then why do all the 50-50 calls go against us....just like the forward pass in the first half for Capewells first try. I can live with 50-50, because they are exactly that, 50-50. Not 90-10 or 80-20.

Doesn't matter. The scoreboard shows the end result. I turned it of after the 50-50 double movement anwyay because it was then I knew what the result was meant to be.
+1


formerguest
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 3197
Joined: Fri 07 Jun, 2013 7:33 pm
Has liked: 229 times
Been liked: 76 times

Unread post by formerguest » Sun 18 Jun, 2017 4:37 pm

Swordy wrote:
Sun 18 Jun, 2017 2:19 pm
Really? He advances the ball after it touches the ground. It doesn't move forward at the same pace as the rest of his body with the momentum, it reaches the line because he pushes his arm forward. Only the bunker saw it different, both on field ref's said NO TRY.

"An attacking player whose momentum does not allow the ball to reach the try-line or in-goal after their ball-carrying arm touches the ground may not reach out to score if a defender is in contact with them"

If his arm carrying the ball stayed int he same position against his body, then it would not have reached the line with his momentum.

And lets just say you still disagree (and its opinion, so thats OK), then why do all the 50-50 calls go against us....just like the forward pass in the first half for Capewells first try. I can live with 50-50, because they are exactly that, 50-50. Not 90-10 or 80-20.

Doesn't matter. The scoreboard shows the end result. I turned it of after the 50-50 double movement anwyay because it was then I knew what the result was meant to be.
Called it a double movement live, same at the front on replay and still have no doubt that he attempts to promote his arm over the line. However, I thought it was sent up as a try and Brooks' legs touching his arm on the side angle clouds the issue.

User avatar
Yossarian
Member
Member
Posts: 9136
Joined: Sat 11 Jul, 2009 7:46 pm
Location: Central Coast
Has liked: 38 times
Been liked: 115 times

Unread post by Yossarian » Sun 18 Jun, 2017 4:48 pm

formerguest wrote:
Sun 18 Jun, 2017 4:37 pm
Swordy wrote:
Sun 18 Jun, 2017 2:19 pm
Really? He advances the ball after it touches the ground. It doesn't move forward at the same pace as the rest of his body with the momentum, it reaches the line because he pushes his arm forward. Only the bunker saw it different, both on field ref's said NO TRY.

"An attacking player whose momentum does not allow the ball to reach the try-line or in-goal after their ball-carrying arm touches the ground may not reach out to score if a defender is in contact with them"

If his arm carrying the ball stayed int he same position against his body, then it would not have reached the line with his momentum.

And lets just say you still disagree (and its opinion, so thats OK), then why do all the 50-50 calls go against us....just like the forward pass in the first half for Capewells first try. I can live with 50-50, because they are exactly that, 50-50. Not 90-10 or 80-20.

Doesn't matter. The scoreboard shows the end result. I turned it of after the 50-50 double movement anwyay because it was then I knew what the result was meant to be.
Called it a double movement live, same at the front on replay and still have no doubt that he attempts to promote his arm over the line. However, I thought it was sent up as a try and Brooks' legs touching his arm on the side angle clouds the issue.
It was sent up as no try. Klein overturned it.

User avatar
Yossarian
Member
Member
Posts: 9136
Joined: Sat 11 Jul, 2009 7:46 pm
Location: Central Coast
Has liked: 38 times
Been liked: 115 times

Unread post by Yossarian » Sun 18 Jun, 2017 4:53 pm

Personally I think it was a double movement. Ball carrying arm hits the ground, he makes a second movement to advance the ball. Maybe he would have got there on momentum but it doesn't matter. He moves his arm up and forward.

formerguest
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 3197
Joined: Fri 07 Jun, 2013 7:33 pm
Has liked: 229 times
Been liked: 76 times

Unread post by formerguest » Sun 18 Jun, 2017 4:53 pm

Yossarian wrote:
Sun 18 Jun, 2017 4:48 pm
formerguest wrote:
Sun 18 Jun, 2017 4:37 pm
Swordy wrote:
Sun 18 Jun, 2017 2:19 pm
Really? He advances the ball after it touches the ground. It doesn't move forward at the same pace as the rest of his body with the momentum, it reaches the line because he pushes his arm forward. Only the bunker saw it different, both on field ref's said NO TRY.

"An attacking player whose momentum does not allow the ball to reach the try-line or in-goal after their ball-carrying arm touches the ground may not reach out to score if a defender is in contact with them"

If his arm carrying the ball stayed int he same position against his body, then it would not have reached the line with his momentum.

And lets just say you still disagree (and its opinion, so thats OK), then why do all the 50-50 calls go against us....just like the forward pass in the first half for Capewells first try. I can live with 50-50, because they are exactly that, 50-50. Not 90-10 or 80-20.

Doesn't matter. The scoreboard shows the end result. I turned it of after the 50-50 double movement anwyay because it was then I knew what the result was meant to be.
Called it a double movement live, same at the front on replay and still have no doubt that he attempts to promote his arm over the line. However, I thought it was sent up as a try and Brooks' legs touching his arm on the side angle clouds the issue.
It was sent up as no try. Klein overturned it.
Then as it was inconclusive, no try because not enough evidence to overrule the on field decision.


User avatar
stryker
Member
Member
Posts: 10791
Joined: Sun 19 Jul, 2009 4:16 pm
Location: Cairns
Has liked: 24 times
Been liked: 142 times

Unread post by stryker » Sun 18 Jun, 2017 4:56 pm

It was a fair try every day of the past 20 years....
If you want to feel robbed, the forward pass try should be your whinge.

User avatar
Mighty Tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 832
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 8:23 pm
Been liked: 2 times

Unread post by Mighty Tiger » Sun 18 Jun, 2017 10:56 pm

It was a try

User avatar
Geo.
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 25147
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 10:55 pm
Location: Sandy Point NSW.
Has liked: 256 times
Been liked: 391 times

Unread post by Geo. » Sun 18 Jun, 2017 11:03 pm

A ref disagrees...
Attachments
19225691_1394686713929837_5599230870576430764_n.jpg
19225691_1394686713929837_5599230870576430764_n.jpg (68.08 KiB) Viewed 252 times
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...

Telltails
Member
Member
Posts: 1894
Joined: Fri 18 Apr, 2014 3:24 pm
Has liked: 88 times
Been liked: 46 times

Unread post by Telltails » Sun 18 Jun, 2017 11:31 pm

Deadset double movement - regardless of how it may have been ruled years ago - currently every other week that is a double movement.

Byron Bay Fan
Member
Member
Posts: 3892
Joined: Sat 17 Oct, 2015 2:14 pm
Has liked: 52 times
Been liked: 51 times

Unread post by Byron Bay Fan » Mon 19 Jun, 2017 12:14 am

I have no idea about every other week but he got there due to Luke's body hitting his. Due to the speed of the extra movement it could only be due to Luke's impact. With his right arm flat jammed under his own body, with his left arm clearly seen not digging his elbow into to the ground to propel forward and with the bodies on top and grabbing his legs he could not move his own body that quickly. I think there was contact with the line before Luke's leg brought the ball around to the front making it appear as arm movement.

http://www.weststigers.com.au/news/2017 ... s_sha.html
Malcolm Knox: What has happened this week is a pity for the Tigers, a pity for Jason Taylor and a pity for Robbie Farah, who had achieved more than the Big Four put together but was somehow turned into collateral damage. (SMH 25-26 March, 2017)

goldcoast tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 5452
Joined: Sat 12 Apr, 2014 5:42 pm
Has liked: 38 times
Been liked: 65 times

Unread post by goldcoast tiger » Mon 19 Jun, 2017 7:21 am

Sco77y wrote:
Sun 18 Jun, 2017 2:29 pm
It looked like he advanced it but that's because Brooks' knees when they slide in behind his arm carrying the ball pushes it forward. I don't think it was completely momentum but it definitely looks like Brooks as a result of sliding in to help the tackle has given it an extra push over the line.
That's what I thought when I saw the Slow Motion version , his arm was definetly pushed ahead by a Wests Tigers player
The decision was fine. I don't know why it's controversial.

User avatar
WestsBenTigers
Member
Member
Posts: 1497
Joined: Wed 05 Oct, 2016 11:14 am
Has liked: 282 times
Been liked: 75 times

Unread post by WestsBenTigers » Mon 19 Jun, 2017 7:43 am

Watching it live, I don't think he grounded the ball
I will support Wests Tigers through thick or thin
I will be cheering when they win
I will love the Tigers Till I Die
With loyal supporters we will fly
I love the Tigers with my heart and soul
I just love the club as a whole
If the Wests Tigers believe
We will Unite, Commit and Achieve
:sign: :sign: :sign:

maxxy86
Member
Member
Posts: 1347
Joined: Fri 04 Mar, 2011 11:54 am
Has liked: 70 times
Been liked: 15 times

Unread post by maxxy86 » Mon 19 Jun, 2017 7:51 am

WestsBenTigers wrote:
Mon 19 Jun, 2017 7:43 am
Watching it live, I don't think he grounded the ball
See that's my main gripe that the ball wasn't heading downward but upward. There for not pressure downward. I'm not blaming the award for this try tho we sucked in the last 10 for sure.
Well its nearly time to have a 'CRACK'....Go you :sign:

Byron Bay Fan
Member
Member
Posts: 3892
Joined: Sat 17 Oct, 2015 2:14 pm
Has liked: 52 times
Been liked: 51 times

Unread post by Byron Bay Fan » Mon 19 Jun, 2017 7:52 am

[media][/media]
WestsBenTigers wrote:
Mon 19 Jun, 2017 7:43 am
Watching it live, I don't think he grounded the ball
That occurred to me as well but sliding with the ball over the line is generally accepted as grounding it as usually there is downward pressure - there would be a milligram of pressure.
Malcolm Knox: What has happened this week is a pity for the Tigers, a pity for Jason Taylor and a pity for Robbie Farah, who had achieved more than the Big Four put together but was somehow turned into collateral damage. (SMH 25-26 March, 2017)

formerguest
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 3197
Joined: Fri 07 Jun, 2013 7:33 pm
Has liked: 229 times
Been liked: 76 times

Unread post by formerguest » Mon 19 Jun, 2017 7:55 am

Byron Bay Fan wrote:
Mon 19 Jun, 2017 12:14 am
I have no idea about every other week but he got there due to Luke's body hitting his. Due to the speed of the extra movement it could only be due to Luke's impact. With his right arm flat jammed under his own body, with his left arm clearly seen not digging his elbow into to the ground to propel forward and with the bodies on top and grabbing his legs he could not move his own body that quickly. I think there was contact with the line before Luke's leg brought the ball around to the front making it appear as arm movement.

http://www.weststigers.com.au/news/2017 ... s_sha.html
Elbow on the ground has nothing to do with the movement, it is his shoulder that lifts the arm. Whilst Brooks was there and probably pushed it further into the in goal area than Capewell would have, as others stated the on field call was try, so should not have been overturned.

User avatar
mtd
Member
Member
Posts: 1855
Joined: Thu 16 Jul, 2009 9:23 am
Been liked: 1 time

Unread post by mtd » Mon 19 Jun, 2017 8:00 am

more of a try than a no try..

if that was disallowed for the tigers i'd have been ropeable.

it was the right call.

Russell
Member
Member
Posts: 3274
Joined: Sat 10 Dec, 2011 6:46 pm
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 123 times

Unread post by Russell » Mon 19 Jun, 2017 8:11 am

Double movement for mine.

You have to look at the angle of his arm in relation to his body. The angle changes after he hits the ground because he promotes the ball.

It's water under the bridge now anyway - it would be nice to get a decent call every now again though.

Wouldn't have a chance with Perenara and Klein at any time though.

TrueTiger
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 4977
Joined: Thu 14 Aug, 2014 11:22 am
Has liked: 13 times
Been liked: 60 times

Unread post by TrueTiger » Mon 19 Jun, 2017 8:33 am

stryker wrote:
Sun 18 Jun, 2017 4:56 pm
It was a fair try every day of the past 20 years....
If you want to feel robbed, the forward pass try should be your whinge.
Im with Stryker on this one...fair try awarded,play on....I have to say the forward pass try was a disgusting piece of reffing..these forward and flat passes are becoming a regular occurance in the game and although there are 4 officials on the park at one time,none of them can get it right...time for the bunker to intervene,it seems too have the call on everything else..the other pain at the moment is the obstruction rule..it needs to be refined....
You may see me struggle...but you will never see me quit... :D

Post Reply

Return to “Round 15: Wests Tigers vs Cronulla Sharks”