-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* NRL 2012 Season thread
- Thread starter Ausage
- Start date
uvelocity
International Coach
I'd reckon tate diffused about 4 high kicks plus that penalty goal kick set could have ended with one.
Carney has been outstanding at forcing dropouts at club level, just didn't seem part of the game plan last night.
Ausage
Cricketer Of The Year
He tried early with a little grubber which was very easily diffused by Boyd I think.
NUFAN
Y no Afghanistan flag
I still can't get over this. MoTM is such a subjective award that I never bother to bet on it, but you must have gotten a raging hard on when you saw the Titan player collect the award.They obv haven't paid me out yet, but err..
uvelocity
International Coach
I think that was a **** up one that ended up a couple of metres short of the line?
howardj
International Coach
I thought it was no try last night..
I would say it’s a question of degree – if somebody boots the ball out your hand or there’s a real kicking motion as you’re going to put it down or they forcefully slide in with their legs under the ball, then it should be play on
By contrast, as with last night, if somebody just puts their foot out like that with no real kicking motion, then the onus should be on the ball carrier to be able to retain possession
It’s more nuanced than just saying that somebody played a part in the ball coming free (like with a strip, unless there’s a real raking motion with the hand, then there’s generally speaking no penalty – the onus is placed on the ball carrier)
In league, there’s a premium on ball security – it’s what distinguishes the game from Union (where knock-ons and forward passes regularly get overlooked) and AFL (where you can fumble and knock the ball forward with no real penalty)
Accordingly, I don’t think league tries should be given lightly when somebody just sticks their foot out like that, and the ball is coughed up
I would say it’s a question of degree – if somebody boots the ball out your hand or there’s a real kicking motion as you’re going to put it down or they forcefully slide in with their legs under the ball, then it should be play on
By contrast, as with last night, if somebody just puts their foot out like that with no real kicking motion, then the onus should be on the ball carrier to be able to retain possession
It’s more nuanced than just saying that somebody played a part in the ball coming free (like with a strip, unless there’s a real raking motion with the hand, then there’s generally speaking no penalty – the onus is placed on the ball carrier)
In league, there’s a premium on ball security – it’s what distinguishes the game from Union (where knock-ons and forward passes regularly get overlooked) and AFL (where you can fumble and knock the ball forward with no real penalty)
Accordingly, I don’t think league tries should be given lightly when somebody just sticks their foot out like that, and the ball is coughed up
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
Yeah, it was a try given on "slow-mo" effect, where movements are overanalysed. Farah was just planting to shift his movement, so that he could try and cover Inglis.
Son Of Coco
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yeah I think he was in the process of trying to get his leg in the road rather than trying to kick it out of Inglis's hands. It just so happened in the slow-mo replay it showed the ball ended up hitting his toe. If Farah can make a split-second decision to kick it away like that then the bloke's a genius.
Thought Williams went alright last night too, it seemed like nearly every single hit-up he made saw a QLD player back-pedalling and ending up on his arse. Cam Smith the funniest one for mine.
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Seems weird that there is only one video ref making the decision in big matches.
In hockey, there is a video review system for goals. The video umpire can ring NHL HQ in Toronto if they want, or can consult with other officials at the game if they are in doubt.
Should have two video refs. They both make rulings independent of each other. If it's unanimous then fine, if it's split 1-1 then it's benefit of the doubt with the attacking team I guess (even though that's a stupid rule, but that's a different issue).
The main thing is that more people involved in the decision making process means it's less likely to **** up. Even though if we had the above it still would have been a try due to it being split at 1-1.
On the benefit of the doubt thing, the fact that there is still debate over whether it was a try or not clearly means there was some element of doubt in the process, so should have been given benefit of the doubt (it wasn't). The BOTD rule is my absolute pet hate in rugby league.
In hockey, there is a video review system for goals. The video umpire can ring NHL HQ in Toronto if they want, or can consult with other officials at the game if they are in doubt.
Should have two video refs. They both make rulings independent of each other. If it's unanimous then fine, if it's split 1-1 then it's benefit of the doubt with the attacking team I guess (even though that's a stupid rule, but that's a different issue).
The main thing is that more people involved in the decision making process means it's less likely to **** up. Even though if we had the above it still would have been a try due to it being split at 1-1.
On the benefit of the doubt thing, the fact that there is still debate over whether it was a try or not clearly means there was some element of doubt in the process, so should have been given benefit of the doubt (it wasn't). The BOTD rule is my absolute pet hate in rugby league.
Spikey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Benefit of the doubt going with the attacking side is probably the most unique thing about rugby league. I can't think of many other sports where a team is aiming for something big and match changing and stuff and the officials are like "well we're not sure if you've achieved that, so here you go!". We don't hand out wickets in cricket...
uvelocity
International Coach
yeah but its like cricket in that the doubt always goes the same way, with the batsman, so it should be the same for both. having benefit of the doubt going with the attacking team means more tries and more excitement rather than the defending team
found it interesting (infuriating) hollywood harrigan said farah was playing at the ball with his foot, yet inglis wasn't playing at the ball with his arms??!!
found it interesting (infuriating) hollywood harrigan said farah was playing at the ball with his foot, yet inglis wasn't playing at the ball with his arms??!!
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
It seems like because of the BOTD people are only talking about the try decision instead of the game. Seems counterintuitive to me.
Mister Wright
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Can understand all the controversy over the Inglis try, but it's kind of pointless, it in no way decided the game. The cold hard facts are that NSW didn't even score enough points to beat QLD in the first half. Inglis try irrelevant.
howardj
International Coach
Spot on
That's the exact point i have always made to friends
League has the benefit of the doubt the wrong way around
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
The excitement thing doesn't wash with me, either. The exciting part, the piece of actual play, has already happened. It doesn't necessarily becoming more exciting just because the video ref gives a certain decision, one way or another.