Re: Team for Wakefield : Sun Sep 27, 2020 7:23 am  

Phuzzy wrote:

couldn't agree more with the sending it up one way or the other though. Either make the call (right or wrong) OR send it up. Not both.

Absolutely

Re: Team for Wakefield : Sun Sep 27, 2020 7:24 am  

wotsupcas wrote:

It didn't matter who the ball came off as it went backwards from a Wakefield point of view. Try all day long

And as I mentioned earlier, you shouldn't have had the ball in the first place as Johnstone knocked on the set before but a dropout was given.

Re: Team for Wakefield : Sun Sep 27, 2020 7:28 am  

Phuzzy wrote:

And I'd disagree with that. His forearm and fingers on the ball carrying arm never lose contact with the ball. They're given every week. It all depends on your view of what constitutes losing control. If you're disallowing because of some arbitrary judgement call of what constitutes under control I'd suggest we'll be disallowing a lot more than we do. Some part of the hand/arm touching the ball has always been try as per Stevo's "fingertip control". Whether it should be is an entirely separate argument.

Couldn't agree more with the sending it up one way or the other though. Either make the call (right or wrong) OR send it up. Not both.

Control isn't part of the rule. It's downward pressure you need.

Re: Team for Wakefield : Sun Sep 27, 2020 7:32 am  

The ref should either award the try or he shouldn’t. There should be no sending it to the video ref with ‘I’ve got a try / no try’ message.
This is I feel where the captain’s challenge rule could be used, it’s the captains call if he thinks the ref is wrong in his decision. Give two captains challenges per team but these should only be used in the action of scoring a try and not for knock on/ obstruction to the lead up, this area should still be controlled by the official

Re: Team for Wakefield : Sun Sep 27, 2020 1:48 pm  

Grimmy wrote:

Control isn't part of the rule. It's downward pressure you need.

Indeed. Quite clearly downward pressure in this case too so makes it all the more a try (if that's possible).

Re: Team for Wakefield : Sun Sep 27, 2020 1:51 pm  

Phuzzy wrote:

Indeed. Quite clearly downward pressure in this case too so makes it all the more a try (if that's possible).

I'd disagree. It's tight but I think there's separation (thus no downward pressure, knock on)

Re: Team for Wakefield : Sun Sep 27, 2020 2:37 pm  

Grimmy wrote:

I'd disagree. It's tight but I think there's separation (thus no downward pressure, knock on)

The operative word there is "think" Grimmy. If you can show me a single frame of footage that shows separation then I'll agree. I'd counter your assertion and say that ball movement does not necessarily imply separation. Whether you "think" it did or not is immaterial. The fact remains that it cannot be shown, less so proven. Try all day long.

P.S. Am I right in remembering you advocating try for the "Ryan Hall finger tip control" no try for GB? If not, as you were. If so, what do you see as the difference?

Re: Team for Wakefield : Sun Sep 27, 2020 2:47 pm  

Phuzzy wrote:

The operative word there is "think" Grimmy. If you can show me a single frame of footage that shows separation then I'll agree. I'd counter your assertion and say that ball movement does not necessarily imply separation. Whether you "think" it did or not is immaterial. The fact remains that it cannot be shown, less so proven. Try all day long.

P.S. Am I right in remembering you advocating try for the "Ryan Hall finger tip control" no try for GB? If not, as you were. If so, what do you see as the difference?

Yes, as I say it's tight. I see why the on field officials didn't pick it up, and the video ref didn't have enough evidence to overturn it. Obviously my thoughts are immaterial the same as yours, doesn't stop us talking about it!

Hall - you keep going back to control, that's not a factor in it. Yes I do think Hall's should have been awarded. He had downward pressure on the ball IMO, never any separation after he touched it.

Re: Team for Wakefield : Sun Sep 27, 2020 2:52 pm  

That Ryan Hall try gets given if it's Inglis to win it for Oz

Re: Team for Wakefield : Sun Sep 27, 2020 3:01 pm  

Grimmy wrote:

Yes, as I say it's tight. I see why the on field officials didn't pick it up, and the video ref didn't have enough evidence to overturn it. Obviously my thoughts are immaterial the same as yours, doesn't stop us talking about it!

Hall - you keep going back to control, that's not a factor in it. Yes I do think Hall's should have been awarded. He had downward pressure on the ball IMO, never any separation after he touched it.

Don't misunderstand me. I didn't mean immaterial in that sense. All opinions are immaterial except the ref's. I meant immaterial with regards to this discussion as thinking something is not the same as being able to prove it. Not a single frame of footage shows separation so for you to think something has no bearing on proving your point (purely within the framework of this discussion). So when you advocate "no try" I'm asking for you to illustrate why. (That being the point of a discussion, no?)

The Ryan Hall was exactly the same in that at no point could separation be shown, therefore "try".

You're not wrong EC!