PDA

View Full Version : Try or No Try



leaguerefaus
02-11-14, 10:11
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vsIZSjUNrI

Huge call either way, with the decision deciding the match.

TNT88
02-11-14, 11:11
For rugby league, I'm not sure. I had a scan of their rules and couldn't find the relevant section: http://www.nrl.com/portals/nrl/RadEditor/Documents/NRL%20Rules%20book%202013FINAL.pdf

For rugby union we have this checklist:


22.1 (b) Player presses down on the ball. A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the in-goal and the player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck inclusive.

- is the ball on the ground?
- did the player press down on it his body/hand/arm?

One test I would apply for "pressing down" is, "did the ball's movement change because of the player's actions", if not, how could he be "pressing" on the ball?

So ignoring whether or not its on the ground, I think it is, I don't think he is pressing down on the ball. I gather this from the front angle, where the ball bounces as if it would have if he had not touched the ball, hence I'm saying I think the side angle creates a bit of an illusion in terms of the "grounding".

Browner
02-11-14, 11:11
For rugby league, I'm not sure. I had a scan of their rules and couldn't find the relevant section: http://www.nrl.com/portals/nrl/RadEditor/Documents/NRL%20Rules%20book%202013FINAL.pdf

For rugby union we have this checklist:



- is the ball on the ground?
- did the player press down on it his body/hand/arm?

One test I would apply for "pressing down" is, "did the ball's movement change because of the player's actions", if not, how could he be "pressing" on the ball?

So ignoring whether or not its on the ground, I think it is, I don't think he is pressing down on the ball. I gather this from the front angle, where the ball bounces as if it would have if he had not touched the ball, hence I'm saying I think the side angle creates a bit of an illusion in terms of the "grounding".

That question is answered by physics ... A very low PSI is still pressure ....

To my eye, during slow mo, the distorted shape of his finger is the 'micro' clue.
Try !

The referees explantion that the ball was "rising" isn't backed up by the slow mo.... Which shows the fingertip pressure 'before' the ball rises.

leaguerefaus
02-11-14, 12:11
Grounding the Ball includes:
a. Placing the ball on the ground with hand or hands, wrist or forearm
b. Exerting a downward pressure on the ball in contact with the ground
c. Dropping on the ball and covering it with the front part of the body above the waist and below the neck.


A player who has had possession or touches/touched the ball and knocks the ball forward must regain possession
(catch, hold or grip) prior to the ball hitting the ground, another player, goal post or cross bar .


For the ball to be deemed grounded, pressure must be applied by the player’s fingers, hand, wrist, forearm or torso so as to create a reasonable influence on the plane of the ball including the spin, rotation, momentum or bounce.


I wouldn't say his finger had a "reasonable influence on the plane of the ball including the spin, rotation, momentum or bounce". But still... such a tight call to end a fabulous game.

TNT88
02-11-14, 13:11
Agreed, this is another area of law (including in-touch) that league defines much better.

winchesterref
02-11-14, 14:11
It doesn't help the overall impression for the general public that there were non-neutral officials, especially in a tight call like this

Ricardowensleydale
02-11-14, 14:11
Looked like a try to me.
The rules say "including" spin, rotation etc.

Browner
02-11-14, 15:11
Looked like a try to me.
The rules say "including" spin, rotation etc.

Yep, notwithstanding that the referees words of on the way up, weren't correct.

As an aside....

Law has always been drafted by the legally minded to include words like "reasonable" "intentional" etc .... It then allows the " fee" clock to tick longer whilst their profession debate the grey area it creates , among themselves ...

RobLev
02-11-14, 16:11
Yep, notwithstanding that the referees words of on the way up, weren't correct.

As an aside....

Law has always been drafted by the legally minded to include words like "reasonable" "intentional" etc .... It then allows the " fee" clock to tick longer whilst their profession debate the grey area it creates , among themselves ...

If you wants black and white, you gets black and white - but be very careful what you wish for...

Take this example; take the word "reasonable" out of the rule, and tell me whether this was a try.

Dixpat
02-11-14, 19:11
The decision was a crock of ....

Finger clearly on ball, ball on ground & finger event bent backwards which is very hard to do if one isn't pushing it against something
30593060

Dixpat
02-11-14, 19:11
In my considered view the ref's decision making in this game was "anti the Poms" and as jonesp92 noted above it ain't a good look when the ref is from the other country.

I don't think England received a single penalty in the second half yet there were numerous times when the ref could be heard telling the Australian tackler/s to get their hands off the ball in the PTB - a penalisable offence

Whenever Aussie needed a leg up in the 2nd half they received a penalty because the England player/s "were holding down too long" yet the same standard wasn't applied against the Australians

I'm not accusing the ref of cheating or bias but it does show that circumstances subconsciously affect decision making in humans

Reminds me that Miandad was never given out LBW in Pakistan by a Pakistani umpire during his international career!

4eyesbetter
02-11-14, 20:11
Much as the Aussies can go and do four-letter words to themselves; no try, 20 restart.

There'll always be a problem with neutral officials as long as there are only two professional leagues; Thierry Alibert was still always a Super League bloke and Henry Perenara will always be an NRL bloke. Unless it gets to the point where the entire England squad is taking the Aussie dollar, which might not be beyond the realms of possibility.

Lee Lifeson-Peart
02-11-14, 20:11
In my considered view the ref's decision making in this game was "anti the Poms" and as jonesp92 noted above it ain't a good look when the ref is from the other country.

I don't think England received a single penalty in the second half yet there were numerous times when the ref could be heard telling the Australian tackler/s to get their hands off the ball in the PTB - a penalisable offence

Whenever Aussie needed a leg up in the 2nd half they received a penalty because the England player/s "were holding down too long" yet the same standard wasn't applied against the Australians

I'm not accusing the ref of cheating or bias but it does show that circumstances subconsciously affect decision making in humans

Reminds me that Miandad was never given out LBW in Pakistan by a Pakistani umpire during his international career!

Who was the only father and son partnership to open the batting for Pakistan?

Miandad.

Lee Lifeson-Peart
02-11-14, 20:11
The RH "try" was a piss poor decision. I'm not sure if Hall's post match interview (it would have been a try in the SL) was a dig at the home TMO or we are back in the land of "international rules" bollocks which seems to raise its head every time we lose to Australia ie every game.

Notwithstanding the end it was a great game (only saw highlights) to watch. England manged to butcher a few chances which is never good against the likes of Australia.

What was the reason for the kits? It looked like Rotherham Phoenix v Old Modernians in Yorkshire 3 refereed by Alfredo di Stefano (look him up kids)

Ian_Cook
02-11-14, 20:11
That was a try IMO.

The loose ball only requires downward pressure.

b. Exerting a downward pressure on the ball in contact with the ground

1. The England player's finger is bent back, indicatiiong that pressure is being placed on the ball

2. The ball is clearly in contact with the ground.


I cannot see how a try was not awarded when this was a try

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/fingertry.jpg

Ian_Cook
02-11-14, 20:11
What was the reason for the kits? It looked like Rotherham Phoenix v Old Modernians in Yorkshire 3 refereed by Alfredo di Stefano (look him up kids)


100th anniversary of the "Rourke's Drift Test"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1914_Great_Britain_Lions_tour_of_Australia_and_New _Zealand

Maroon and blue are the original colours of Australia, a combination of NSW and Queensland colours

Lee Lifeson-Peart
02-11-14, 20:11
,
100th anniversary of the "Rourke's Drift Test"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1914_Great_Britain_Lions_tour_of_Australia_and_New _Zealand

Maroon and blue are the original colours of Australia, a combination of NSW and Queensland colours

Cheers Ian.

Thank God we didn't have to listen to them sing Men of Harlech after the final whistle. :biggrin:

Dickie E
02-11-14, 21:11
Try for me

menace
02-11-14, 22:11
In my considered view the ref's decision making in this game was "anti the Poms" and as jonesp92 noted above it ain't a good look when the ref is from the other country.

I don't think England received a single penalty in the second half yet there were numerous times when the ref could be heard telling the Australian tackler/s to get their hands off the ball in the PTB - a penalisable offence

Whenever Aussie needed a leg up in the 2nd half they received a penalty because the England player/s "were holding down too long" yet the same standard wasn't applied against the Australians

I'm not accusing the ref of cheating or bias but it does show that circumstances subconsciously affect decision making in humans

Reminds me that Miandad was never given out LBW in Pakistan by a Pakistani umpire during his international career!

Contradiction in terms?

Ps. Try. Poms were robbed. Without TMO I can understand the decision, with TMO and not to check it was when that close is a big error. Ref will be sent back to elementary reffing school.

Lee Lifeson-Peart
02-11-14, 22:11
Message to S Lancaster. It's still not too late to give Ryan Hall a ring.:wink:

RobLev
02-11-14, 23:11
That was a try IMO.

The loose ball only requires downward pressure.

b. Exerting a downward pressure on the ball in contact with the ground

1. The England player's finger is bent back, indicatiiong that pressure is being placed on the ball

2. The ball is clearly in contact with the ground.


I cannot see how a try was not awarded when this was a try

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/fingertry.jpg

For me, the problem is with this part of the rule:


For the ball to be deemed grounded, pressure must be applied by the player’s fingers, hand, wrist, forearm or torso so as to create a reasonable influence on the plane of the ball including the spin, rotation, momentum or bounce.

Yes, pressure was applied by the player's litle finger; that's absolutely clear. But did that pressure "create a reasonable influence on the plane of the ball"? For me: No. No try.

Dixpat
02-11-14, 23:11
Contradiction in terms?

Ps. Try. Poms were robbed. Without TMO I can understand the decision, with TMO and not to check it was when that close is a big error. Ref will be sent back to elementary reffing school.

But they did check it and TMO [Australian:)] denied it on the basis that the ball was going up when he touched it!!

menace
03-11-14, 00:11
But they did check it and TMO [Australian:)] denied it on the basis that the ball was going up when he touched it!!
My bad...didn't see the game and just saw highlight on TV news and thought all the hoopla was that it was reported that it wasn't referred.

TMO will be sent back to TMO school.:rolleyes:

Ps. Was just able to see the YouTube link on another device (YouTube is blocked on work PCs) I think the reaction of red #5 and his second attempt to ground it helped convince the the TMO that the player didn't think h3 forced it either.

I still think it should have been a try, but you can't say it was clear and obvious try!

Ian_Cook
03-11-14, 02:11
For me, the problem is with this part of the rule:



Yes, pressure was applied by the player's litle finger; that's absolutely clear. But did that pressure "create a reasonable influence on the plane of the ball"? For me: No. No try.

Does it matter how much pressure was applied? Surely it only matters that pressure was applied while the ball was in contact with the ground

The only argument against I can see is that, if the ball continued to move up while the pressure was being applied, then the ball may not have been in contact with the ground. This is guesswork though. How to we know how much the ball was distorted after having bounced.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd2V4_FNMls

If this ball was a rugby ball, and an attacking player applied "pinky finger" pressure as the ball was in its expansion phase (from around 5-5½ sec in the video) would that be sufficient downward pressure to award a try even if the ball appeared to be travelling upwards?

RobLev
03-11-14, 03:11
Does it matter how much pressure was applied? Surely it only matters that pressure was applied while the ball was in contact with the ground

...

In League, yes it does, apparently. It has to:

...create a reasonable influence on the plane of the ball including the spin, rotation, momentum or bounce

From a NRL rule clarification (http://www.nrl.com/laws-of-the-game-grounding-the-ball/tabid/10874/newsid/71020/default.aspx) that leaguerefaus quoted earlier. Unfortunately, however red and white tinted I make my glasses, I still can't see any such influence. Therefore, No Try.

Dixpat
03-11-14, 04:11
In League, yes it does, apparently. It has to:

...create a reasonable influence on the plane of the ball including the spin, rotation, momentum or bounce

From a NRL rule clarification (http://www.nrl.com/laws-of-the-game-grounding-the-ball/tabid/10874/newsid/71020/default.aspx) that leaguerefaus quoted earlier. Unfortunately, however red and white tinted I make my glasses, I still can't see any such influence. Therefore, No Try.

So assuming the ball was stationary on the ground you would then say that the Billy Slater "try" in the photo above is a "no try" - have I got that correct?

leaguerefaus
03-11-14, 04:11
Trying to decide on downward pressure and control from a photo is ridiculous.

https://scontent-a-pao.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/10702051_10152511308756379_3088781700748340227_n.j pg?oh=75380b0ea04334f926d46cc1c94d0002&oe=54F7F6C6

If you want to go down that path, then surely you would have to agree that Inglis has also grounded the ball and thus Hall could not subsequently score.

TNT88
03-11-14, 05:11
As has been mentioned, the player must apply a reasonable influence on the ball. If Greg Inglis try for the storm influenced the bounce of the ball, as he might have considering he is over the ball, then it is a try. In this case the ball bounced as if it would have if the English player didn't touch it.

This is a great test and it should be implemented in rugby union.

RobLev
03-11-14, 06:11
So assuming the ball was stationary on the ground you would then say that the Billy Slater "try" in the photo above is a "no try" - have I got that correct?

It depends - what influence did the pressure have "on the plane of the ball"? If none, then League rules apparently say no try.

Dixpat
03-11-14, 06:11
Trying to decide on downward pressure and control from a photo is ridiculous.

https://scontent-a-pao.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/10702051_10152511308756379_3088781700748340227_n.j pg?oh=75380b0ea04334f926d46cc1c94d0002&oe=54F7F6C6

If you want to go down that path, then surely you would have to agree that Inglis has also grounded the ball and thus Hall could not subsequently score.

Sorry but the picture is too indistinct to comment on but the replays at the time showed that at no time did GI attempt to put downward pressure on the ball - his intent was to scoop it over the dead ball line

leaguerefaus
03-11-14, 07:11
Sorry but the picture is too indistinct to comment on but the replays at the time showed that at no time did GI attempt to put downward pressure on the ball - his intent was to scoop it over the dead ball line
We seem to agree that a picture can't tell you anything about downward pressure :)

OB..
03-11-14, 13:11
At least Union has the advantage that no sensible player would attempt to scoop the ball dead insead of touching it down :hap:

4eyesbetter
03-11-14, 17:11
Only because he'd get a penalty try against, as I think Karmichael Hunt discovered a few years ago.

When it's legal, the higher-percentage play is surely to knock it dead; screw it up and the ball's probably still heading in the vague direction of the line and away from chasers, you might even get another go. Screw up trying to control the ball, and you're far more likely to leave it standing in-goal for the highest bidder.

Browner
03-11-14, 20:11
If you wants black and white, you gets black and white - but be very careful what you wish for...

Take this example; take the word "reasonable" out of the rule, and tell me whether this was a try.

Removing "reasonable" makes non difference to this set of variables.

IMO the wording ought to be limited , thereafter eyesight ( or TMO review decides, all BoDoubt to attackers) .

limited to.....For the ball to be deemed grounded, pressure must be applied by the player’s fingers, hand, wrist, forearm or torso.

leaguerefaus
04-11-14, 13:11
The opinions of three great refs of the past are below:

Greg McCallum, who refereed 12 years of first grade, including three grand finals and 14 Tests, said: “No, there wasn’t enough downward pressure. He certainly got a finger on the ball but there wasn’t enough force.

Ten-time grand final referee Bill Harrigan was short and sharp.

“No try,” he said.


Legendary referee Greg Hartley agreed.

“I don’t think it was a try,” Hartley said. “He didn’t ground the ball in my opinion. There certainly wasn’t enough evidence to award that a try. The grounding just wasn’t sufficient.”

Browner
04-11-14, 13:11
The opinions of three great refs of the past are below:

Greg McCallum, who refereed 12 years of first grade, including three grand finals and 14 Tests, said: “No, there wasn’t enough downward pressure. He certainly got a finger on the ball but there wasn’t enough force.

Ten-time grand final referee Bill Harrigan was short and sharp.

“No try,” he said.


Legendary referee Greg Hartley agreed.

“I don’t think it was a try,” Hartley said. “He didn’t ground the ball in my opinion. There certainly wasn’t enough evidence to award that a try. The grounding just wasn’t sufficient.”

So, the Greg's need "Enough/sufficient"........ how much is that ??????

leaguerefaus
04-11-14, 13:11
So, the Greg's need "Enough/sufficient"........ how much is that ??????

"so as to create a reasonable influence on the plane of the ball including the spin, rotation, momentum or bounce" presumably.

Dixpat
04-11-14, 19:11
The opinions of three great refs of the past are below:

Greg McCallum, who refereed 12 years of first grade, including three grand finals and 14 Tests, said: “No, there wasn’t enough downward pressure. He certainly got a finger on the ball but there wasn’t enough force.

Ten-time grand final referee Bill Harrigan was short and sharp.

“No try,” he said.


Legendary referee Greg Hartley agreed.

“I don’t think it was a try,” Hartley said. “He didn’t ground the ball in my opinion. There certainly wasn’t enough evidence to award that a try. The grounding just wasn’t sufficient.”

So we have 3 ex Australian referees supporting the decision in favour of an Australian team by an Australian video ref and an Australian ref - is that really a surprise!

I am sure the Poms could roll out 3 from the other side which say it was a try

Lee Lifeson-Peart
04-11-14, 20:11
John Holdsworth - "Try"

Stuart Cummins - "Try"

Russell Smith - "Try"

:biggrin:

RobLev
04-11-14, 21:11
So we have 3 ex Australian referees supporting the decision in favour of an Australian team by an Australian video ref and an Australian ref - is that really a surprise!

Reasone decisions which match the facts - unless you can see the Pom little finger actually having any influence on the ball?


I am sure the Poms could roll out 3 from the other side which say it was a try

Matters not - the question is whether the pressure had a reasonable influence on the plane of the ball...

Dixpat
04-11-14, 22:11
Matters not - the question is whether the pressure had a reasonable influence on the plane of the ball...

Please explain in as plain English as possible what the term "influence on the plane of the ball" actually means

RobLev
04-11-14, 23:11
Please explain in as plain English as possible what the term "influence on the plane of the ball" actually means

It must mean something to RL refs; presumably, however, a contact that makes not a ha'porth of difference to the behaviour of the ball, like Hall's, isn't sufficient grounding to constitute a try.

Dixpat
05-11-14, 01:11
It must mean something to RL refs; presumably, however, a contact that makes not a ha'porth of difference to the behaviour of the ball, like Hall's, isn't sufficient grounding to constitute a try.

I am not trying to put you on the spot but then if that were the case if a ball was stationary on the ground and the "tryscorer" merely put his fingers on the ball with downwards pressure and the ball started stock still in its original position there is no try - surely not!!

Ian_Cook
05-11-14, 01:11
Please explain in as plain English as possible what the term "influence on the plane of the ball" actually means

I imagine it means that the movement of the ball must somehow change; i.e. if it is rotating, the speed or plane of rotation must change to indicate that the player has got sufficient contact on the ball to influence it... that's my 2p worth anyway.

Browner
05-11-14, 01:11
So we have 3 ex-Australian referees supporting the decision in favour of an Australian team by an Australian video ref and an Australian ref - is that really a surprise!


Yes to all Australians , they are surprised they only found 3 !

leaguerefaus
05-11-14, 08:11
Interestingly, Phil Bentham (Eng) has been appointed to NZ v Eng, while Gerard Sutton (Aus) has been appointed to Aus v Samoa.

RobLev
05-11-14, 14:11
I am not trying to put you on the spot but then if that were the case if a ball was stationary on the ground and the "tryscorer" merely put his fingers on the ball with downwards pressure and the ball started stock still in its original position there is no try - surely not!!

That's a different situation and I'm not a League referee...

But for my money Hall's little finger made not a ha'porth of difference to the behaviour of the ball, so by League rules no try. If you think it did affect the behaviour of the ball, have at it.

leaguerefaus
13-11-14, 09:11
For anyone interested, Phil Bentham (Eng) will be holding the whistle for the Aus-NZ final.