I will concede the try is on the board, it is history and we are gone. I'm not debating that.
But just a comment directly on that try.
I'm still 50/50 as to whether or not it was a try.
What I do know is that the referee must have the fastest reactions in the world. Quite clearly, and regardless of what hayne says, his intention must have been to call time off and refer it after after the first grounding by Inu. I say this because the whistle blew and play was stopped within milliseconds of the second grounding, either milliseconds before or milliseconds after.
Given the reaction time, the referee must have been intending to stop play and refer the first grounding.
I also claim that once the ball touches the ground in the first instance, and even though Moltzen has his hands on the ball and not the player, then the ball cannot be promoted and as such a tackle is completed.
Quite clearly then, the play was to be referred and so a play the ball should have taken place immediately once the referral for the first attempt was reviewed and called a 'no try'.
I also claim that once the ball touches the ground in the first instance, and even though Moltzen has his hands on the ball and not the player, then the ball cannot be promoted and as such a tackle is completed.
In a long shot, you could also claim a voluntary tackle. Given that Inu grounded the ball. Stopped, (apparently) was not tackled, then how long can he lay there not being tackled before he decides to promote the ball. It was certainly not promoted instantaneously as an immediate second movement.
Seems like we can raise plenty of doubt as to why it is not.
But just a comment directly on that try.
I'm still 50/50 as to whether or not it was a try.
What I do know is that the referee must have the fastest reactions in the world. Quite clearly, and regardless of what hayne says, his intention must have been to call time off and refer it after after the first grounding by Inu. I say this because the whistle blew and play was stopped within milliseconds of the second grounding, either milliseconds before or milliseconds after.
Given the reaction time, the referee must have been intending to stop play and refer the first grounding.
I also claim that once the ball touches the ground in the first instance, and even though Moltzen has his hands on the ball and not the player, then the ball cannot be promoted and as such a tackle is completed.
Quite clearly then, the play was to be referred and so a play the ball should have taken place immediately once the referral for the first attempt was reviewed and called a 'no try'.
I also claim that once the ball touches the ground in the first instance, and even though Moltzen has his hands on the ball and not the player, then the ball cannot be promoted and as such a tackle is completed.
In a long shot, you could also claim a voluntary tackle. Given that Inu grounded the ball. Stopped, (apparently) was not tackled, then how long can he lay there not being tackled before he decides to promote the ball. It was certainly not promoted instantaneously as an immediate second movement.
Seems like we can raise plenty of doubt as to why it is not.
