Re: ROBBED AGAIN : Mon Mar 01, 2010 8:55 pm  

Legionited wrote:

One thing I fail to understand is why KR fans feel the need to defend the decision as if they have something to lose by admitting that it was contentious at best. The 2 points are yours, you don't need to worry about losing them.

If you genuinely do think the decision was right then fair enough, but I highly doubt if it was the other way around that you wouldn't have been up in arms about it.

It clearly has caused disagreement amongst all fans, I suppose it was a 50-50 call and they usually go to the attacking side. I felt at the time it was no try because of the players reaction as where we were (on the halfway on the bottom step) it was impossible to see, but when they replayed it on the screen I said to the missus 'nothing wrong with that' as did a few cas fans stood nearby. Having since seen it several times, i am still of the opinion it was a good call.

Re: ROBBED AGAIN : Mon Mar 01, 2010 9:02 pm  

So why wasn't the Ainscough try awarded in the first half with the 'benefit of the doubt' to the attacking side? I know they were different, but for me 1 can't be awarded and the other not :\

Re: ROBBED AGAIN : Mon Mar 01, 2010 9:10 pm  

rover49 wrote:

It clearly has caused disagreement amongst all fans, I suppose it was a 50-50 call and they usually go to the attacking side. I felt at the time it was no try because of the players reaction as where we were (on the halfway on the bottom step) it was impossible to see, but when they replayed it on the screen I said to the missus 'nothing wrong with that' as did a few cas fans stood nearby. Having since seen it several times, i am still of the opinion it was a good call.

Well we're all entitled to our own opinions.

As was said on the previous page, if that happened in open play it would have been a knock on.

If the player knocked the ball forward in the air following a kick to the corner and then grounded it that way it would have been a knock on too.

Re: ROBBED AGAIN : Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:17 pm  

Towns88 wrote:

So why wasn't the Ainscough try awarded in the first half with the 'benefit of the doubt' to the attacking side? I know they were different, but for me 1 can't be awarded and the other not :\

He lost control before the line, Watts was over the line.

Re: ROBBED AGAIN : Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:50 pm  

But still lost control.

Re: ROBBED AGAIN : Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:14 pm  

I really dont see how Watts try was awarded, its just like running at a player, throwing the ball over his head and recatching it..

Re: ROBBED AGAIN : Tue Mar 02, 2010 1:24 am  

NormyCasTiger wrote:

I really dont see how Watts try was awarded, its just like running at a player, throwing the ball over his head and recatching it..

The only difference being the process of throwing the ball over the opponents head would be done in a controlled manner whereas this was a lack thereof and should have been punished as so.

Re: ROBBED AGAIN : Tue Mar 02, 2010 4:53 am  

Legionited wrote: The only difference being the process of throwing the ball over the opponents head would be done in a controlled manner whereas this was a lack thereof and should have been punished as so. I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but everyone seems to be seizing on the idea that "being in control" is the key here just because various commentators tell us it is on TV. Nowhere in the laws of the game does it mention this, all that is needed for a try to be scored is for the ball to be grounded in the in goal area, those are the rules that the referee enforces. see for your self http://www.therfl.co.uk/clientdocs/rugb ... 2007_%20(2).pdf The only question for the liam watts try that needs asking was did he get his hand or arm on the ball before it hit the ground or after, I reckon that's the 50/50 call and it depends on who you support whether you think he did or not.

Legionited wrote: The only difference being the process of throwing the ball over the opponents head would be done in a controlled manner whereas this was a lack thereof and should have been punished as so. I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but everyone seems to be seizing on the idea that "being in control" is the key here just because various commentators tell us it is on TV. Nowhere in the laws of the game does it mention this, all that is needed for a try to be scored is for the ball to be grounded in the in goal area, those are the rules that the referee enforces. see for your self http://www.therfl.co.uk/clientdocs/rugb ... 2007_%20(2).pdf The only question for the liam watts try that needs asking was did he get his hand or arm on the ball before it hit the ground or after, I reckon that's the 50/50 call and it depends on who you support whether you think he did or not.

Re: ROBBED AGAIN : Tue Mar 02, 2010 11:11 am  

Towns88 wrote:

But still lost control.

Which part of the rule says you have to have control when grounding the ball?

Re: ROBBED AGAIN : Tue Mar 02, 2010 12:24 pm  

overthemoon wrote:

Which part of the rule says you have to have control when grounding the ball?

Which part of the rule book says you don't have to regather the ball before it hits the ground after knocking on?