LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
It's at worst inconclusive to overturn and that's at utter best, think he's clearly got it down in that regard. No problem with those being given. The one's I hate are the pinky put downs least he used his whole hand lol
NRL NRL 2024 - Grand Final Melbourne vs Penrith
- Thread starter balmainforever
- Start date
- Tagged users None
It's at worst inconclusive to overturn and that's at utter best, think he's clearly got it down in that regard. No problem with those being given. The one's I hate are the pinky put downs least he used his whole hand lol
phantom13
Moderator
- Moderator
- #802
That remains the same thing weve all seen.
With all due respect i truly cant understand how any sees that as conclusive that he doesnt get that down.
I can ABSOLUTELY see that its not conclusive that he does get it down but his arm being under a section of the ball doesnt rule out that he got another section of the ball down.
Anyway, ive discussed this far too much given it dont really care and i dont think it impacted the outcome.
phantom13
Moderator
- Moderator
- #803
Even this... Thats gonna get sent up at a try every single day of the week and that is not at all conclusive that he doesnt get the ball down, his hand being under a section as he moves and slides means theres a very very good chance that some section of the ball grazes the turf, in fact the more i watch it the more im convinced it probably would.
If thats sent up as a Try it gets upheld for sure.
I think the outcome on both is right i just cant see how anyone can say that there is zero doubt about either.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
That for me is the issue. The outcome on both are correct but to come back as 100% lay down certain that Hogwarth didn’t get it down was surprising. It’s inconclusive therefore it’s a no try but that should have been the ruling
Jatz
Jatzosaurus Rex
- Sep 7, 2008
- 58,105
- 41,454
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Philadelphia Eagles
It's amusing because (and obviously I respect your opinion) I truly can't understand how anyone thinks that gets anywhere near the ground. To me, that is clearly held up by the arm and actually doesn't even get close to it.
Is there a timestamp in particular you think it gets close? Because I don't even see how it's debatable.
Jatz
Jatzosaurus Rex
- Sep 7, 2008
- 58,105
- 41,454
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Philadelphia Eagles
No problem with it being sent up as a try, the referee would assume it has.
Just looking at it, I don't believe it has touched the ground at any point over the try line.
I think this one is far more 50/50 than the Howarth one.
phantom13
Moderator
- Moderator
- #807
i think it gets down at 4 seconds but im pretty sure the extended vision as he rolls it stays where it is and his arm moves which would expose even more of the ball.
Again, i have no issue with it not being overturned, i think i said Sunday that on first view of the replay i thought he CLEARLY got it down (and the other angle that did the rounds it looks even more like he did) but the more i watch it the more i think its very unclear either way.
I think the most likely spot is RIGHT on the try line but its another one where (and there is some assumption in this) soft ground, soft flesh and a malleable ball. One mm of the Steeden brushing grass seems almost inevitable going down like that.
i posted this pic earlier in the thread for some context.
If youre holding the ball with hand (or cradled in arm) there is just so much surface area exposed that literally needs to kiss a blade of grass. If you get down with no one else underneath you it would be harder to not ground the ball tbh.
Jatz
Jatzosaurus Rex
- Sep 7, 2008
- 58,105
- 41,454
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Philadelphia Eagles
I probably won't change anyone's mind but the Howarth one from that angle:
The ball on the left side of the video is always pointed up in the air - can not touch the ground based on the angle at all.
The part of the ball on the right (angled down) shows an arm underneath it. If you rock and roll it slowly between 3-5 seconds on that clip, you see the ball land on an arm as it goes to ground and then gets lifted as they roll him.
Maybe I'm alone but that's incredibly clear proof (to me) that's not touched the ground.
I still think the most absurd thing is we didn't get that angle until the NRL had to release it to media straight after the game. That should've been shown as it was happening.
The ball on the left side of the video is always pointed up in the air - can not touch the ground based on the angle at all.
The part of the ball on the right (angled down) shows an arm underneath it. If you rock and roll it slowly between 3-5 seconds on that clip, you see the ball land on an arm as it goes to ground and then gets lifted as they roll him.
Maybe I'm alone but that's incredibly clear proof (to me) that's not touched the ground.
I still think the most absurd thing is we didn't get that angle until the NRL had to release it to media straight after the game. That should've been shown as it was happening.
- May 5, 2016
- 47,168
- 52,770
- AFL Club
- Geelong
The Turuva one? To me that’s a try 9 times out of ten. I would assume pretty strongly that the other end of the ball touches the turf. Yes you can’t see it so I get people having an issue with it but in footballing terms generally your torso will make sure the other part of the ball gets grounded
Jatz
Jatzosaurus Rex
- Sep 7, 2008
- 58,105
- 41,454
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Philadelphia Eagles
That comment in particular was the Howarth one.
I absolutely see your point on the Turuva one (and agree), I just think was that 10th time where it somehow hasn't.
- May 5, 2016
- 47,168
- 52,770
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Look that’s fair enough I’m not going to say you’re dead wrong as such because the truth is you can’t be 100 per cent certain one way or the other but for me personally I would not really have much hesitation blowing it
- May 5, 2016
- 47,168
- 52,770
- AFL Club
- Geelong
And that’s probably the difference, he is coming down onto the ground so it’s a slightly dissimilar try scoring motion creating more of the doubt
- Oct 3, 2008
- 7,545
- 8,093
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Storm were on the wrong side of 50/50 calls. It happens all the time in RL. The way it goes.
Just sucks it was a GF. It kind of took some shine off the whole thing.
Penrith are a machine that grind you down. Storm really missed Nelson in a physical game like that.
Storm didn´t get it right when it mattered most. Penrith did.
Just sucks it was a GF. It kind of took some shine off the whole thing.
Penrith are a machine that grind you down. Storm really missed Nelson in a physical game like that.
Storm didn´t get it right when it mattered most. Penrith did.
- Sep 28, 2007
- 20,429
- 21,478
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Odd take.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
One way to put it. They were thrashed and a prop didn’t cost them Penrith have better forwards than Nelson
- May 5, 2016
- 47,168
- 52,770
- AFL Club
- Geelong
They really weren’t - because they were on the right side of a dozen non calls. I get it that try could easily have been awarded so in a close high stakes game like that I feel for any team that misses out.
But they could have been penalised any number of times for deliberately slowing Penrith down, it was blatant. There were instances where Penrith probably could have been too but they didn’t need to slow Melbourne down nearly as much and it didn’t look anywhere near as deliberate or premeditated
- Oct 3, 2008
- 7,545
- 8,093
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Possibly but it just so happens that the most controversial call and biggest talking point is that no try call that puts Melbourne ahead on the scoreboard which is 50/50 because some people say clear try some people say no try.
Just the way it is.
Penrith were better on the night and thats the way it goes.
