Inglis try or no try?

[AndTheKungFoSing]

I thought the Maroons didn't get out of second gear.

They didn't… because the Blues killed them around the ruck. Tamou, Bird and Farah were sensational. To much speed and agility for the cheats. The cheats ever only gained field position of the back of dodgy penalties.

 

[Yossarian]

Knock on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw8upGTJDcA

Farah playing at it is redundant.

Control of ball -Farah Foot -Loss control of ball -**Inglis Forearm -Loss control of ball -Grass** -Bounce -Grounded

Last time I check the part in bold constitutes a knock on… simple as. Video ref and field refs should be sacked.

Yeah I'd have to look again (no youtube at work…) but I thought the key question was whether GI had control in the first place (which I doubt). In any case it seemed to go from Inglis' arm to either Farah's boot or the ground so in that sense it would seem a knock on and your only other consideration is the legality of the ball being lost.

 

[stryker]

Try every day of the week. I am actually angry that it took so long to award it….effectively stealing precious minutes away from the Maroons possibly scoring again.

...that is the controversy....

 

[Glen_McWilliams]

Try every day of the week. I am actually angry that it took so long to award it….**effectively stealing precious minutes away** from the Maroons possibly scoring again.

...that is the controversy....

Time off.

If you're aiming for a wind up do better.

 

[ragedmachine]

Farah playing at it is redundant.

Control of ball -Farah Foot -Loss control of ball -**Inglis Forearm -Loss control of ball -Grass** -Bounce -Grounded

Spot on.


Qlders and turncoats, take the maroon goggles off

 

[Yossarian]

Well it's either a knock-on or a penalty. Inglis clearly propels it forward off his arm into Farah's leg. The only question is whether you penalise Farah for knocking the ball out with his foot. Certainly not a try based on the footage above.

 

[Gary_Bakerloo]

No try or penalty try - all depends on whether Farah's actions were deemed as intentional.

 

[stryker]

As Tigers fans, I am puzzled as to why some of you are claiming Robbie did not play at that ball. I feel we know him well enough now to realise that he is such a competitor that it is inconcievable that he would not do everything possible to prevent GI scoring.

 

[ragedmachine]

But that's the irrelevant part. The video Ref should have ruled it as a penalty for the Slater rule, but obviously it was deemed ok because it is ruled on their interpretation.

So the next thing to rule on is whether Inglis knocked on.

Which the above footage CLEARY proves.

= no try

 

[AndTheKungFoSing]

As Tigers fans, I am puzzled as to why some of you are claiming Robbie did not play at that ball. I feel we know him well enough now to realise that he is such a competitor that it is inconcievable that he would not do everything possible to prevent GI scoring.

He did play at it… but Inglis' arm pushed it forward, therefore knock-on. Wake-up.

 

[stryker]

Wake up??!?

All the refs, including their boss, have come out and said the decision is right as per the rule book. Both coaches have endorsed the decision. Many experts and players have done likewise….and the clincher? It was given, it is in the record books for eternity...the case is closed. So it doesnt matter how many tears you shed on your boyfriends shoulder, or get on here and sulk about it, the try still stands.

Everyone who has ever played a sport realises that you dont always get the rub of the green. Maybe if you had ever played you may have learnt to accept the refs decision. Its just the way it goes.

 

[Yossarian]

Wake up??!?

All the refs, including their boss, have come out and said the decision is right as per the rule book. Both coaches have endorsed the decision. Many experts and players have done likewise….and the clincher? It was given, it is in the record books for eternity...the case is closed. So it doesnt matter how many tears you shed on your boyfriends shoulder, or get on here and sulk about it, the try still stands.

Everyone who has ever played a sport realises that you dont always get the rub of the green. Maybe if you had ever played you may have learnt to accept the refs decision. Its just the way it goes.

Gee there's something for everyone there:

A look at the scoreboard crack, an un-needed gay slur, a "if you've never played your opinion doesn't count"…

A lot of stuff gets discussed in here post event with no belief that things will get changed but hey it is a forum...

 

[Gary_Bakerloo]

Wake up??!?

All the refs, including their boss, have come out and said the decision is right as per the rule book. Both coaches have endorsed the decision. Many experts and players have done likewise….and the clincher? It was given, it is in the record books for eternity...the case is closed.

You write this post like the entire world cares about the result. I enjoy SOO, but if my state of birth wins or loses, it either adds or subtracts about 5% to my enjoyment. SOO is a vehicle for getting about 25 of the world's best players on the field at one time. It displays how great the game can be with the state rivalry just a handy background theme to serve the match's real purpose of being a marketing scheme.

This thread is just discussing if it was a try or no try. Yes, it is in the record books and this cannot be changed. However will the record books even matter in 10 years time? I can't remember who won SOO in 2002, but I sure remember who won the NRL in 2002 and every other year for that matter.

The point of the thread is to get people's opinion and knowledge of the legality of the try. There is no need for parochialism as it distorts the discussion.

 

[Tiger_Watto]

Lol… Cant believe some are still sooking it up. The decision stands and has been endorsed by the powers to be even though I dont agree it was a try...

The part I find funniest is all the comments leading up to the series like "club ahead of State", but now some think they were close/robbed of a win it means something...

Your waisting your time Stryker... Let them cry!
\
\
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

 

[bbobb]

I was at the game. The incident happened abut 20 metres in front of me. I think i would have had as good as view as anyone and it wasn't a try. In normal motion, it looked like a knock-on. Robbie's foot did not even look like a major contributor!

2 things need to be remembered here:

1) If that had occured anywhere else but the tryline it would have been a knock-on
2) I am not sure if this wass clear but the QLD team lined up on the 10 metre line waiting for a restart - they didn't think it was a try.

Blues/Maroon's issues aside, it is sad to see a spectacle such as that decided on a very controversial call.

 

[Tiger_Watto]

But the game wasn't decided by this try or no try call…

If Qld thought it wasn't a try, wouldn't they look to reset on the 30 meter line?

 

[Troyzab]

Thought it was a good game of footy!!
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

 

[TigersFan4Life]

Well, according to the rules as they are, it was a try. Just means the rules are stupid and need to be changed.

 

[AndTheKungFoSing]

Wake up??!?

All the refs, including their boss, have come out and said the decision is right as per the rule book. Both coaches have endorsed the decision. Many experts and players have done likewise….and the clincher? It was given, it is in the record books for eternity...the case is closed. So it doesnt matter how many tears you shed on your boyfriends shoulder, or get on here and sulk about it, the try still stands.

Everyone who has ever played a sport realises that you dont always get the rub of the green. Maybe if you had ever played you may have learnt to accept the refs decision. Its just the way it goes.

Gee there's something for everyone there:

A look at the scoreboard crack, an un-needed gay slur, a "if you've never played your opinion doesn't count"…

A lot of stuff gets discussed in here post event with no belief that things will get changed but hey it is a forum...

You expected anything more? :unamused:

 

[tig_prmz]

such a load of crap. the ball was in inglis' hand. HENCE, if robbie purposefully kicked, it is an 8 point try. the ball was in inglis' hand look carefully.

however, robbie, (imo) did not kick it on purpose, inglis tried to put the ball down really fast, and came in contact with robbie's foot. KNOCK ON !

only 2 situations here: knock on or 8 point try. their reasoning is absolute crap.