Lyon was right...refs stank

[SeaEagleRock8]

I don't think any separation occurred and my read is either did the bunker.

The boofhead said " and you can see he has not "re-gripped" the ball"

The fact that his hand was flat but still in contact with the ball all the way down didn't seem to matter to the dope.

Has the rule changed? Do you now need to "Grip" the ball when grounding?

Even the commentators seemed bemused.

Not so much 'grip' when grounding, but if you lose control of it and propel the ball forward, you have to 're-grip' it or regain control of it before it hits the ground, another player, the goalpost or crossbar. I can't remember the exact wording, but it was posted in a comment on one of the news articles today.

They haven't gone all the way back to the good old days of requiring proper downward pressure, it's kind of a middle ground between that and the horrible, untidy 'as long as it's still vaguely in contact with some millimetre of your body' rubbish that was being dished up a couple of years ago.

This is the problem. hardly anyone even knows the rule anymore.
When you go to the footy take your lawyer with you to explain the rulings.
For my part, I was happy with the no-try ruling. Very happy, if it was awarded we were stuffed!

 

[Woodsie]

Agree @SeaEagleRock8 My interpretation is wrong 90% of the time.

Maybe we should all have interactive apps and vote on each incident. The numbers tallied and the big screen announces viewers choice.

 

[Jethro]

I don't think any separation occurred and my read is either did the bunker.

The boofhead said " and you can see he has not "re-gripped" the ball"

The fact that his hand was flat but still in contact with the ball all the way down didn't seem to matter to the dope.

Has the rule changed? Do you now need to "Grip" the ball when grounding?

Even the commentators seemed bemused.

Excerpt from Page 13 of the NRL LAWS & INTERPRETATIONS 2016

http://www.nrl.com/portals/nrl/RadEditor/Documents/NRL15_1651 NRL Laws Interpretations_A4_Brochure_FA_2_Proof.pdf

 

[Jethro]

NRL claims new video angle proves Joe Burgess no-try call was correct

http://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl...t/news-story/1f29461fd84b06134df01d962d220c05

 

[Woodsie]

NRL claims new video angle proves Joe Burgess no-try call was correct

http://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl...t/news-story/1f29461fd84b06134df01d962d220c05

But, but , but if the bunker didn't see this new angle footage it doesn't change the fact that they were right or wrong based on the footage they did see.

 

[CBreeagles]

But, but , but if the bunker didn't see this new angle footage it doesn't change the fact that they were right or wrong based on the footage they did see.

I saw this new angle last night on TV

 

[Shoe1]

But, but , but if the bunker didn't see this new angle footage it doesn't change the fact that they were right or wrong based on the footage they did see.

The article on the nrl site says that the bunker did see this angle, but the broadcaster didn't show it. You gotta laugh.

http://m.nrl.com/joe-burgess-no-try-decision--new-vision/tabid/10874/newsid/99604/default.aspx

Yeah he dropped it. A bit.

 

[KOMORI]

Either or.... We still lol @ $ouffs

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Either or.... We still lol @ $ouffs

Hope it also happens to lol@parra , now that would indeed be a lol moment!!

 

[niccipops]

I saw this new angle last night on TV

I clearly imagined that angle last night. The silly bunny dropped the ball. Massive gap between the hand and ball.
Don't know why the fuss?
It was nothing like the case in 2013 when Matai's hand was clearly on the ball and the No Try that needed an investigation happened.

 

[mickqld]

All boils down to idiot morons like Turdburger thinking that they are god trying to make an imperfect game , perfect with stupid bunkers.

 

[yokahontas]

Excerpt from Page 13 of the NRL LAWS & INTERPRETATIONS 2016

http://www.nrl.com/portals/nrl/RadEditor/Documents/NRL15_1651 NRL Laws Interpretations_A4_Brochure_FA_2_Proof.pdf

Thanks @Jethro - that was the one I saw today, the 'catch, hold, or grip' reference.

 

[Jethro]

Thanks @Jethro - that was the one I saw today, the 'catch, hold, or grip' reference.

No worries

 

[yokahontas]

This is the problem. hardly anyone even knows the rule anymore.
When you go to the footy take your lawyer with you to explain the rulings.
For my part, I was happy with the no-try ruling. Very happy, if it was awarded we were stuffed!

They change the rules so often, it's hard to keep up with it anymore.

This one is a really good illustration of that actually - everyone who thinks it was a try (or wants to think that) is carrying on about 'separation' - that's not what they're looking at these days, the word 'separation' isn't even mentioned in that part of the rule book any more.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Excerpt from Page 13 of the NRL LAWS & INTERPRETATIONS 2016

http://www.nrl.com/portals/nrl/RadEditor/Documents/NRL15_1651 NRL Laws Interpretations_A4_Brochure_FA_2_Proof.pdf

Thanks for posting that Jethro.
But seriously, what a ridiculous definition.
I assume the influence that Joe exerted on the plane of the ball was unreasonable...

 

[weev]

Agree with everything except the 'no try' - it wasn't a try. While they don't require proper downward pressure anymore, the wording is something like 'maintain control' - and there's no way Burgess had any control over where that ball was, he was desperately scrabbling to keep a finger or two in contact with it as it slid away from his hand. If that was a try, Myles didn't knock the ball on a couple of minutes later either - he had the same level of finger contact on the ball the whole time as Joe Burgess did.

Interesting its 'maintain control' as the fox commentators focussed on fingers in contact with the ball. Quite a difference.

 

[midsteyne]

brilliant bunker ruling,ref was trying to make souffs win,refs are cheats,killer is god.souffs suck

 

[yokahontas]

Interesting its 'maintain control' as the fox commentators focussed on fingers in contact with the ball. Quite a difference.

Most of the media carrying on about the decision are labouring the point that his fingers never completely left the ball (which is a bit debatable anyway), totally missing the point because that isn't the rule. Bottom line is, because he lost the grip/control he HAD, and in a forward direction, it doesn't matter whether he had 2 fingernails touching the ball the whole time. He got it to the ground in the act of knocking it on, the bunker call was right.

 

[globaleagle]

So we now all know that yet another Burgess is a 'fibber,' commentators should practise being a bit more professional rather than outdated tribal ****wads, and Manly, as ever, rule!

 

[weev]

brilliant bunker ruling,ref was trying to make souffs win,refs are cheats,killer is god.souffs suck

Thank you Donald Trump.