@tiger5150 we obviously have a difference of opinion on the interruption of the rule. Which is the problem with interruptions. I see and respect what you are saying but believe they look at regaining possession of the ball differently to having the ball for an extended period. That’s why we will continue to see one handed tries.
@tiger5150 we obviously have a difference of opinion on the interruption of the rule. Which is the problem with interruptions. I see and respect what you are saying but believe they look at regaining possession of the ball differently to having the ball for an extended period. That’s why we will continue to see one handed tries.
Oh I am sure we will continue to see one handed tries, because the NRL officials cant be consistent with their interpretation of the rules. Of course there should be one handed tries, and Apis was a try as well.
After watching the reply a few times I couldn’t see any separation. If there was separation it wasn’t conclusive and as the try was awarded by the ref it shouldn’t have been overturned. What happened to the policy of not over turning unless there is sufficient evidence to do so.
They have 11 different camera angles in the bunker…. They tried their darndess to find something and they did 🤷♂️After watching the reply a few times I couldn’t see any separation. If there was separation it wasn’t conclusive and as the try was awarded by the ref it shouldn’t have been overturned. What happened to the policy of not over turning unless there is sufficient evidence to do so.
i watched the replay of the Dogs Knights game and I could swear that Kiraz bobbled the ball for a try in the corner, I was watching the Mini of the match however I'm pretty sure they didn't even bother reviewing it (i could be wrong). Roach actually mentioned it in commentary. However for Api they went straight to Hi Def super slo mo.They have 11 different camera angles in the bunker…. They tried their darndess to find something and they did 🤷♂️After watching the reply a few times I couldn’t see any separation. If there was separation it wasn’t conclusive and as the try was awarded by the ref it shouldn’t have been overturned. What happened to the policy of not over turning unless there is sufficient evidence to do so.
@tiger5150 we obviously have a difference of opinion on the interruption of the rule. Which is the problem with interruptions. I see and respect what you are saying but believe they look at regaining possession of the ball differently to having the ball for an extended period. That’s why we will continue to see one handed tries.
Oh I am sure we will continue to see one handed tries, because the NRL officials cant be consistent with their interpretation of the rules. Of course there should be one handed tries, and Apis was a try as well.
The issue with the current interpretation is there are different indicators once the hand comes away from the ball. If the ball comes away from a player's while he is attempting a one handed put down he has to then regrip the ball not just get his hand in contact and apply downward pressure.
The interpretation is busted.
In memory of Geoff Chisholm (1965-2022)
@tiger5150 we obviously have a difference of opinion on the interruption of the rule. Which is the problem with interruptions. I see and respect what you are saying but believe they look at regaining possession of the ball differently to having the ball for an extended period. That’s why we will continue to see one handed tries.
Oh I am sure we will continue to see one handed tries, because the NRL officials cant be consistent with their interpretation of the rules. Of course there should be one handed tries, and Apis was a try as well.
The issue with the current interpretation is there are different indicators once the hand comes away from the ball. If the ball comes away from a player's while he is attempting a one handed put down he has to then regrip the ball not just get his hand in contact and apply downward pressure.
The interpretation is busted.
Heard that a lot and I understand it.......its not what the rule says though as discussed in the Annesley video. He can catch, hold or grip it according to the rule. He was holding it.
@tiger5150 we obviously have a difference of opinion on the interruption of the rule. Which is the problem with interruptions. I see and respect what you are saying but believe they look at regaining possession of the ball differently to having the ball for an extended period. That’s why we will continue to see one handed tries.
Oh I am sure we will continue to see one handed tries, because the NRL officials cant be consistent with their interpretation of the rules. Of course there should be one handed tries, and Apis was a try as well.
The issue with the current interpretation is there are different indicators once the hand comes away from the ball. If the ball comes away from a player's while he is attempting a one handed put down he has to then regrip the ball not just get his hand in contact and apply downward pressure.
The interpretation is busted.
Heard that a lot and I understand it.......its not what the rule says though as discussed in the Annesley video. He can catch, hold or grip it according to the rule. He was holding it.
I don't think he was holding it or gripping it, if he was to stop downward momentum with his arm. Would the ball stay in contact with his hand? To me that answer is no.
In memory of Geoff Chisholm (1965-2022)
@tiger5150 we obviously have a difference of opinion on the interruption of the rule. Which is the problem with interruptions. I see and respect what you are saying but believe they look at regaining possession of the ball differently to having the ball for an extended period. That’s why we will continue to see one handed tries.
Oh I am sure we will continue to see one handed tries, because the NRL officials cant be consistent with their interpretation of the rules. Of course there should be one handed tries, and Apis was a try as well.
The issue with the current interpretation is there are different indicators once the hand comes away from the ball. If the ball comes away from a player's while he is attempting a one handed put down he has to then regrip the ball not just get his hand in contact and apply downward pressure.
The interpretation is busted.
Heard that a lot and I understand it.......its not what the rule says though as discussed in the Annesley video. He can catch, hold or grip it according to the rule. He was holding it.
I don't think he was holding it or gripping it, if he was to stop downward momentum with his arm. Would the ball stay in contact with his hand? To me that answer is no.
Ive banged on about this long enough and Ill spare everyone after this post but my opinion is if the ball stayed in his hand if he stopped downward momentum, he would be gripping it. He is holding it. if he wanted to put the ball down short of the line he could, he has that control as he is holding the ball. he doesnt just have his hand on the ball he has his hand curled around it, holding it. The rule uses three words to describe what has to happen after losing control and that is not for no reason. The rule says that he has to "catch, hold, or grip" the ball. You are describing gripping it.
Ill give everyone a break now.
I don't think that is holding the ball
In memory of Geoff Chisholm (1965-2022)
I am still yet to see sufficient evidence to overturn the on field decision. In my opinion this is just another bad decision.
I don't think that is holding the ball
I look forward to the NRL reviewing every one armed try in the future with their typical consistency.
I don't think that is holding the ball
I look forward to the NRL reviewing every one armed try in the future with their typical consistency.
The problem is this stupid interpretation only comes in if the players hand comes away from the ball. It is just dumb and creates inconsistencies.
In memory of Geoff Chisholm (1965-2022)
