General Lance's disallowed try

DanKokoro_old

Guest
I was absolutely spewing after that.. After watching tries this year that have been 100 times more questionable than that, I was actually laughing at the TV when Costo was worried that wouldn't be a try. Sure there was brief seperation but he regained contact with the ball before it hit the ground.. that was a dead set try. Everyone knows they've changed the interpretation of what can be considered a try.. but i would have expected that to be given last year.. let alone this year. I must say I have strongly disagreed with alot of the tries given this year under the new interpretation but I would have literally bet my life that that was gonna be a try.. Seriously WTF
 

Warriors2009_old

Guest
yes me 2 great win 2 the warriors congrats 2 the boys 4 the second half.
 

ToiletDuck_old

Guest
It was a total try, the video ref was just a piece of shit who had no idea what was going on.
 

ToiletDuck_old

Guest
Although I thought we maaay have been lucky with the Manu try, certainly looked like his fingers had a bit of a wobble as the ball came down...
 

BringBackRovelli_old

Guest
I had no problem with the decision, it just looked ugly, but I guess it could have been given with benefit of the doubt.
 

ToiletDuck_old

Guest
I had no problem with the decision, it just looked ugly, but I guess it could have been given with benefit of the doubt.

How could you have no problem with the decision given the rules of rugby league?

Have you seen the standard of tries being awarded over the first 6 weeks in terms of grounding of the ball?
 

ultimatefan_old

Guest
I thought he dropped it to be honest. as for the Manu try..well on some angles I thought he did touch it and knocked it forward but pretty sure the Roosters hand got in there somewhere
 

ToiletDuck_old

Guest
We all saw him drop it, geez that's not in question. His put down was legit under the new 'simultaneous' ruling...that's what we're arguing.
 

BringBackRovelli_old

Guest
How could you have no problem with the decision given the rules of rugby league?

Have you seen the standard of tries being awarded over the first 6 weeks in terms of grounding of the ball?

Yeah I have. You cannot see that he maintained contact with the ball until it reached the ground. Although it`s hard to be certain that he didn`t. That`s why `according to the rules of rugby league`, it should have been TRY benefit of the doubt, but I had no problem with the decision, maybe I just don`t like this rule.
 

Pop_old

Guest
Video ref Harrigan awarded a very doubtful try to Winterstein without even a benefit of the doubt signal on Friday night. He appeared to knock the ball forward, and POSSIBLY regather by the time he hit the ground. Under the new (stupid ) rule, Lance's try was clear-cut by comparison.I thik, and hope he cops a blast, Bill's never wrong, as we all know.
 

ToiletDuck_old

Guest
Video ref Harrigan awarded a very doubtful try to Winterstein without even a benefit of the doubt signal on Friday night. He appeared to knock the ball forward, and POSSIBLY regather by the time he hit the ground. Under the new (stupid ) rule, Lance's try was clear-cut by comparison.I thik, and hope he cops a blast, Bill's never wrong, as we all know.

Agreed. I'm not doubting the fact that he lost the ball, or whether it 'deserved' to be awared a try...what we're looking for here in consistency and there was none. That Winterstein try is a perfect example of how little control you can have and be awarded the try, and hence Lance's should have been.
 

DanKokoro_old

Guest
anyone who says that shouldn't have been a try hasn't watched a single other game of NRL this season.. Some tries that have been awarded this season would not have been awarded in 100 years (literally). While i have resented alot of the tries that have been awarded this year, I haven't really had a big problem with it because they were consistent. Until now that is.. And BringBackRovelli I dont know how you could call that try ugly given that you've apparently witnessed the standard of tries given this season.
 

BringBackRovelli_old

Guest
I don`t know, all I can say I wasn`t blowing up when it was not given. I think I may have given it with benefit of the doubt, but I wasn`t blowing up that it wasn`t given. Please forgive me.
 

sebastian_old

Guest
According to the new rules for this season, that was a 100% try. The penalty that got us the goal that made it 16-16 all might have been the get square. All season they've been giving exactly those sort of tries, the try awarded to Penrith on Friday being the perfect example. We were robbed of a try, fullstop. It doesn't excuse the decision but at least it didn't cost us the game today.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

edguy_old

Guest
anyone that says this wasnt a try u must have had your eyes shut last week when keith lulia
scored his very questionable try against us... no way he grounded the ball properly , it wasnt even simultaneous , i think he dropped it cold ,,,but guess what people BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT was the ruling....!!!!! suprise suprise !!!

but did we get BOTD NO ..as usual
 

aussie_warrior_old

Guest
The only thing I will say is that... simultaneous is NOT a try, Lance needs to get the ball BEFORE it hit the ground. Most people are blowing up in this thread because they listened to the commentators who were wrong, but no surprise there really.

Having watched every NRL game this year (thanks Foxtel), I was surprised it wasn't given a try given other examples, but according to the rules it was a touch and go decision.
 

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
837
Skinny_Ravs82
Replies
8
Views
1K
Northern_Union
Replies
1
Views
4K
SeaEaglesWIN66-6
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
krs_64_old
Replies
24
Views
2K
LeagueSuperstar_old