Internationals Spoilers and match talk: Australia v New Zealand

Skinny_Ravs82

Guest
If the tacklers hanged on a bit longer ti Smith he wouldn't have gotten that close in first place. Double movement or not
 

Northern_Union

Guest
Rules clearly state that if your on the ground you only need a hand to placed on you when you move, thats then a double movement.
 

Skinny_Ravs82

Guest
Ok so that's the ruling good. But, at what point did Blair's hand make contact with Smith? It only looked like it happened just after Smith got across the line with the ball grounded.

I'm certainly not saying the try should have been scored, if the defense was paying better attention, but I do think in the context of it, the video ref gave it according to how he felt.
 

Iafeta_old

Guest
Rules clearly state that if your on the ground you only need a hand to placed on you when you move, thats then a double movement.

No it doesn't, actually.

"The attacking player must not promote the football from the position the ball or the arm carrying the ball has been grounded, in the process of scoring a try.

If momentum carries a player in possession into the in-goal area, it will not be a double movement if the ball would have finished over the goal line regardless of any subsequent movement of the ball or the arm carrying the ball."

Irrespective, I have a couple of friends who are in training to be referees, they would award it as tries. Their advice from the NRL is to advise whether there is reasonable control of the attacking player. On last night, Isaac Luke falls off the boot of Cameron Smith and is therefore allowed to continue on.
 

Northern_Union

Guest
No it doesn't, actually.

"The attacking player must not promote the football from the position the ball or the arm carrying the ball has been grounded, in the process of scoring a try.

If momentum carries a player in possession into the in-goal area, it will not be a double movement if the ball would have finished over the goal line regardless of any subsequent movement of the ball or the arm carrying the ball."

Irrespective, I have a couple of friends who are in training to be referees, they would award it as tries. Their advice from the NRL is to advise whether there is reasonable control of the attacking player. On last night, Isaac Luke falls off the boot of Cameron Smith and is therefore allowed to continue on.

The game was not played under NRL rules so what have your friends got to do with it. The game was played under international rules they are different from NRL rules but i thought you would have known that?

Reasonable control of the attacking player????? what a load of shit. The rules don't state anywhere about "controlling the attacking player.When the attacking player is brought down , if he promotes the ball with even a hand on him thats a double movement, fact!

Smiths momentum had ended, he promoted the ball. Double movement, penalty Kiwis.

Was that a quality retort enough for you? A factual responce (not that being factually incorrect has ever stopped you, it's just that you tend to bury it under paragraphs of waffle but hey, thats your thing).
I'm sure you haven't been hit to hard and you'll recover with your usual dozen paragraphs of waffle that you've manage to convince most on here come from an expert of rugby league.

Over to you coach.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Iafeta_old

Guest
Coach? LOL.

You make out as if it is so black and white, quite clearly, it is not. The try is debateable, the rules do state if he is on the ground and a hand put on him he is held, but they also state that if they are not initially "HELD" they are entitled to promote the football. The opinion of the video referee, my opinion, and others coming through the refereeing ranks this morning is Smith broke the tackle of Isaac Luke and is free to promote the football. Your opinion is different, that's fine, but realistically it's such a marginal call there is no way of proving it either way so the debate is futile.

I am no expert of rugby league mate, and nor is anyone else here. I come here for a debate and a bit of fun. I am not a rugby league coach, but likewise I see no point in implying blindness as a reasonable response to a moot point. It'd be ironic if you find that as waffle, as the post would be less in length than your own. The test match is over, maybe loosen up a little. Just a thought.
 

Northern_Union

Guest
Coach? LOL.

You make out as if it is so black and white, quite clearly, it is not. The try is debateable, the rules do state if he is on the ground and a hand put on him he is held, but they also state that if they are not initially "HELD" they are entitled to promote the football. The opinion of the video referee, my opinion, and others coming through the refereeing ranks this morning is Smith broke the tackle of Isaac Luke and is free to promote the football. Your opinion is different, that's fine, but realistically it's such a marginal call there is no way of proving it either way so the debate is futile.

I am no expert of rugby league mate, and nor is anyone else here. I come here for a debate and a bit of fun. I am not a rugby league coach, but likewise I see no point in implying blindness as a reasonable response to a moot point. It'd be ironic if you find that as waffle, as the post would be less in length than your own. The test match is over, maybe loosen up a little. Just a thought.

Your now using the video refs to promote your argument after starting a thread ranting about how poor they are and how they are effecting matches, you can't have it both ways mate.....which way is it going to be?

Loosen up.....hmmmmm, you took a throw away line your mates will hear a million times in there reffing careers, rather personally and responded petulantly with a "Quality retort. Valued opinion, love the factual response.
That really hit me hard. How will I ever recover"

Who needs to loosen up?
 

Iafeta_old

Guest
Yep, that's a fair comment on me using the video referee. My general view point is disregard for them. I'm not having an argument mate, I'm hoping to have a debate. This is not a clear cut issue, there is a difference of opinion. Perhaps for the interest of the other forum members who wish to express an opinion on this or other matters it would be best to accept there is a difference of opinion, the fact is you have not persuaded me to change my opinion that a penalty should have been awarded nor have I changed yours, so agree to disagree, if others wish to offer a vierw on it so be it.
 

Northern_Union

Guest
Fair call. Will defer to others opinions on the matter for now.

Oh by the by, i disagree also that the strip on Perritt was legal, there was three in the tackle, two at the time of the strip.
 

a.c.e_old

Guest
The Smith try was a double movement IMO, we should have gotten the ball back.

Thoughts on the game:

Webb and Leuluai were a waste for time, did little/nothing. Webbs lost alot of speed.

WE NEED HALFS!!!

Rest of the pack were good, solid.

Why did they get those soft tries from dummy? Aussie/Queensland back line, we needed as many bodies out covering them as possible, leaving gaps. The back 3 for Queensland/Storm are gonna be hard to crack come SoO.
 

Skinny_Ravs82

Guest
It really didn 't like a double movement at all honestly even though I wanted it to ne. I realise it was legit and it was just bad defensive read and tackling on the Kiwis part.