Biggest double movement in 20 years

@ said:
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.
 
@ said:
@ said:
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.
 
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.
 
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
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.
 
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.
 
Deadset double movement - regardless of how it may have been ruled years ago - currently every other week that is a double movement.
 
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/2017/06/17/match_highlights_sha.html
 
@ said:
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.
 
@ said:
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.
 
[media][/media]

@ said:
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.
 
@ said:
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/2017/06/17/match_highlights_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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
@ said:
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....
 
fair try

but it did go up as no try so whether it should have been turned around i dont know

the type of decision that the good teams get against the shit teams
 
@ said:
fair try

but it did go up as no try so whether it should have been turned around i dont know

the type of decision that the good teams get against the s*** teams

I prefer the attacking player gets the benefit of the doubt, like boxers get points for aggression even if punches landed are equal. It makes for a more exciting progressing game. We don't want it like soccer with very low scores.
 
@ said:
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.

Absolutely - the Townsend pass to Lee went about 5m forward. Wasn't at high speed either, so I've no idea how it wasn't picked up.
 

Latest posts

Staff online

Members online

Back
Top