QLD Maroons

Pieman wrote:

was the Hodges shepherd try in the same game?
that GI one was such an atrocious decision lol

Different game. The GI decision was atrocious. It should have been a penalty try under the posts for kicking the ball out of his hands. Luckily we still made the conversion so rightfully won by EIGHT.

Dip wrote:

Different game. The GI decision was atrocious. It should have been a penalty try under the posts for kicking the ball out of his hands. Luckily we still made the conversion so rightfully won by EIGHT.

Wasn't the GI try eventually widely accepted by NSWelshwomen?

My recollection is that after they had ceased the customary 3 day sooking period where they look to blame all and sundry (usually the ref's, despite getting a leg up all game as directed by the NRL to try and even up their showpiece event)......most of the moronic tards eventually accepted that it was indeed a correct decision by the letter of the law???

Dip wrote:

Different game. The GI decision was atrocious. It should have been a penalty try under the posts for kicking the ball out of his hands. Luckily we still made the conversion so rightfully won by EIGHT.

Im not saying it cost us the game, just saying it was an atrocious decision.
When a bloke is putting the ball down to score, and the ball is knocked out of his hands - it has, since day 1, been a knock on.

When a player runs from infield, behind one of his own players, and gets an advantage out of it - its been a penalty since day one.

They were two terrible decisions.

Again, not saying they cost NSW the game. Just very very bad decisions.

Pieman wrote:

Im not saying it cost us the game, just saying it was an atrocious decision.
When a bloke is putting the ball down to score, and the ball is knocked out of his hands - it has, since day 1, been a knock on.

When a player runs from infield, behind one of his own players, and gets an advantage out of it - its been a penalty since day one.

They were two terrible decisions.

Again, not saying they cost NSW the game. Just very very bad decisions.

GI had the ball kicked from his hands, which you can't do, plain and simple, no debate. The Hodges one was a shepard every day of the week.

Dip wrote:

GI had the ball kicked from his hands, which you can't do, plain and simple, no debate. The Hodges one was a shepard every day of the week.

Can you imagine the howling if it had been Slater and not Farah who tried to stop the try feet first?

The worst ref decision ever in origin was the video ref calling no knock on from the bomb in 2006 game 3 that gave NSW a 8 point lead. with about 10 to go.

ryno_ wrote:

Can you imagine the howling if it had been Slater and not Farah who tried to stop the try feet first?

Dude, its not like he slid in with his knees or jumped up and Karate kicked someone who is 6'4 in the face.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zo7R0gcAfBc Watch this again, now, and tell me with a straight face that that should have been a try.
Imagine thats the broncos defending and tell me again if you think it should be a try or not.

Farah doesnt even really kick out to stop it!
He prob does slightly, but mostly he is just balancing to try and grab Inglis to stop him.
Its a mixture of Farah trying to get his balance, Farah getting his foot in the right spot, inglis putting the ball on his foot and dropping it.

There is literally no actual (or barely any) Kick to displace the ball.

ryno_ wrote:

Can you imagine the howling if it had been Slater and not Farah who tried to stop the try feet first?

Exactly.

We should be discussing how Farah was clearly trying to be a grubby khunt rather than the legitimate try which was scored afterwards.

Oz Sport Mad wrote:

Exactly.

We should be discussing how Farah was clearly trying to be a grubby khunt rather than the legitimate try which was scored afterwards.

He literally took a step and inglis puts the ball on his foot

He didnt come in studs up sliding in from 10 out thinking "well if ya gonna score at least ill take ur eyes out"

Pieman wrote:

Dude, its not like he slid in with his knees or jumped up and Karate kicked someone who is 6'4 in the face.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zo7R0gcAfBc Watch this again, now, and tell me with a straight face that that should have been a try.
Imagine thats the broncos defending and tell me again if you think it should be a try or not.

Farah doesnt even really kick out to stop it!
He prob does slightly, but mostly he is just balancing to try and grab Inglis to stop him.
Its a mixture of Farah trying to get his balance, Farah getting his foot in the right spot, inglis putting the ball on his foot and dropping it.

There is literally no actual (or barely any) Kick to displace the ball.

And in the bolded, the entire argument is over. He intentionally positions his foot to kick the ball out of GIs hands. Yes, its only slightly. No, its not a studs up challenge. Doesnt matter, its black and white. Cant put your foot to the side and use it to stop a try. Theres no way he was positioning his body to challenge GI, GI was in an unstoppable position. It was just a desperation reflex of a last-ditch effort to stop the try, throwing whatever he could at it. Any player (Slater or not) would have done the same thing. Regardless, its still against the rules.

Pieman wrote:

He literally took a step and inglis puts the ball on his foot

He didnt come in studs up sliding in from 10 out thinking "well if ya gonna score at least ill take ur eyes out"

Enough about Hayne, we're discussing Farah here

ryno_ wrote:

And in the bolded, the entire argument is over. He intentionally positions his foot to kick the ball out of GIs hands. Yes, its only slightly. No, its not a studs up challenge. Doesnt matter, its black and white. Cant put your foot to the side and use it to stop a try. Theres no way he was positioning his body to challenge GI, GI was in an unstoppable position. It was just a desperation reflex of a last-ditch effort to stop the try, throwing whatever he could at it. Any player (Slater or not) would have done the same thing. Regardless, its still against the rules.

Please! U cant prove that he intentionally puts his foot there to kick the ball out - just as I cant prove he didnt.
If you watch it again, he does try and stop inglis, he tries to grab him and to do that he has to put his foot on the ground.
He isnt even looking at the ball when he does it hes looking at GI

If using ur foot to stop a try is actually illegal and is a rule, ok. Give a penalty.
It doesnt change the fact that inglis knocked the fucking ball on. He drops it when its dislodged by the foot, and it bounces off his forearm like 3 or 4 times before it hits the ground, then he grounds it.

Also smith comes over and shakes inglis hand after its awarded as if to say "wow, thats something even I wouldnt get away with, good on ya"

Pieman wrote:
Please! U cant prove that he intentionally puts his foot there to kick the ball out - just as I cant prove he didnt.
If you watch it again, he does try and stop inglis, he tries to grab him and to do that he has to put his foot on the ground.
He isnt even looking at the ball when he does it hes looking at GI

His foot is there intentionally. You cant argue against that. It wasnt put there by anybody else. Nobody can say why he put it there, if it was to kick the ball or if it was just a reflex to try and get underneath him to prevent grounding, but it doesnt matter. Maybe he just got unlucky and the place his foot jumped to just happened to be where GI was going to ground the ball. Doesnt matter, the end result is Farah kicking the ball out of his hands.

Pieman wrote:If using ur foot to stop a try is actually illegal and is a rule, ok. Give a penalty.
It doesnt change the fact that inglis knocked the fucking ball on. He drops it when its dislodged by the foot, and it bounces off his forearm like 3 or 4 times before it hits the ground, then he grounds it.

The only thing stopping GI from scoring was an act of foul play. Thats the textbook definition of a penalty try. Intentional act? Maybe. Probably not. Doesnt matter.

If Farah stuck his hand out as a reflex and smacked GI around the face, causing him to drop the ball itd be the same result. Farah made an illegal challenge on the ball carrier causing the try to be stopped. Open and close.

ryno_ wrote:

His foot is there intentionally. You cant argue against that. It wasnt put there by anybody else. Nobody can say why he put it there, if it was to kick the ball or if it was just a reflex to try and get underneath him to prevent grounding, but it doesnt matter. Maybe he just got unlucky and the place his foot jumped to just happened to be where GI was going to ground the ball. Doesnt matter, the end result is Farah kicking the ball out of his hands.



The only thing stopping GI from scoring was an act of foul play. Thats the textbook definition of a penalty try. Intentional act? Maybe. Probably not. Doesnt matter.

If Farah stuck his hand out as a reflex and smacked GI around the face, causing him to drop the ball itd be the same result. Farah made an illegal challenge on the ball carrier causing the try to be stopped. Open and close.

Is it even illegal to do that? I mean, you see guys most weeks ground the ball on peoples feet - people intentionally put their feet there to stop a ball being grounded when players are being held up over the line and there are never penalties for it. I dont think ive ever seen a penalty awarded for someone intentionally stopping a try with their boot (when its not sliding in or kicking dangerously). Can you show me where in the rules it says it?
I would go as far as to say its totally not illegal to prevent a try being grounded by putting your foot there. Its the kicking/sliding in that could possibly injure someone - thats the illegal play.
As far as sliding in on the knees, or sliding in with studs up - yeah ive seen penalties for that. Never seen one for someone putting their foot under the ball. Can you show me where it says you cant do it please?

There is 100% an argument to be made that Farah was just trying to make the tackle, inglis grounds it on his foot and knocks it on.

The commentators blew up about it.
Even wally said it was a knock on.

If you tackle someone in the middle of the field and your shoulder dislodges the ball - and then it travels forwards - its a knock on.
If in the field of play a tackle is made and if the ball is dislodged in the wrestle by someones head, and travels forward, its a knock on.
If someone is trying to score a try and a foot dislodges the ball (not sliding in, not coming in studs up, not kicking) and it travels forward - its a knock on.

As gus said, whether he has played at it or not - the ball still goes forward, and bounces off his forearm and goes forward. If its an illegal act, they should award a penalty try, or an 8 point try. Not just a flat out try.
I would have been happy if they said - its illegal to do that with the foot - its an 8 point try. Or a penalty try. Or if its foul play but he scored anyway, sin bin farah.
Its most certainly not just an out and out try.

Just a crazy decision.

I understand about being happy about it being awarded because it was for a team you support, but at least admit it was dodgy as fuck.. its clearly not an open and shut try.

If that happened the other way around, I would be like - we yeah it shouldnt be a try but suck shit, they awarded it.

Pieman wrote:If its an illegal act, they should award a penalty try, or an 8 point try. Not just a flat out try.
I would have been happy if they said - its illegal to do that with the foot - its an 8 point try. Or a penalty try. Or if its foul play but he scored anyway, sin bin farah.
Its most certainly not just an out and out try.

Just a crazy decision.

That's what we've been saying. That it should have been a penalty try and therefore the conversion should have been under the posts instead of not under the posts. Another example of QLD being harshly dealt by the refs. Luckily we were able to overcome it and still win by 8. Somehow in all of that NSW fans seem to think they got the short end of the stick. Go figure.

Pieman wrote:


Is it even illegal to do that? I mean, you see guys most weeks ground the ball on peoples feet - people intentionally put their feet there to stop a ball being grounded when players are being held up over the line and there are never penalties for it. I dont think ive ever seen a penalty awarded for someone intentionally stopping a try with their boot (when its not sliding in or kicking dangerously). Can you show me where in the rules it says it?
I would go as far as to say its totally not illegal to prevent a try being grounded by putting your foot there. Its the kicking/sliding in that could possibly injure someone - thats the illegal play.
As far as sliding in on the knees, or sliding in with studs up - yeah ive seen penalties for that. Never seen one for someone putting their foot under the ball. Can you show me where it says you cant do it please?

There is 100% an argument to be made that Farah was just trying to make the tackle, inglis grounds it on his foot and knocks it on.

The commentators blew up about it.
Even wally said it was a knock on.

If you tackle someone in the middle of the field and your shoulder dislodges the ball - and then it travels forwards - its a knock on.
If in the field of play a tackle is made and if the ball is dislodged in the wrestle by someones head, and travels forward, its a knock on.
If someone is trying to score a try and a foot dislodges the ball (not sliding in, not coming in studs up, not kicking) and it travels forward - its a knock on.

As gus said, whether he has played at it or not - the ball still goes forward, and bounces off his forearm and goes forward. If its an illegal act, they should award a penalty try, or an 8 point try. Not just a flat out try.
I would have been happy if they said - its illegal to do that with the foot - its an 8 point try. Or a penalty try. Or if its foul play but he scored anyway, sin bin farah.
Its most certainly not just an out and out try.

Just a crazy decision.

Its somewhere in misconduct, under the tripping clause.

How often does it happen where a player hits the ball out of an opposition players hands, knocks it forward and the ref calls 6 again? See it all the time, usually with a centre or winger jamming one man in trying to stop the pass. No different here. And thats even without counting the fact that Farah (whether he meant to or if it was a reflex) led into a tackle with his feet (albeit not Slater/Reynolds style).

There's always going to be Gus-style whinging about "back in my day it was a knock on" but we arent in your day. Bar down. Farah attempted an illegal tackle by kicking at the ball carrier (might have been a reflex, doesnt matter. Intent is not a defence) and, in essence, performed a kick in general play which was then grounded by GI. Taking those 2 facts into account, I cant understand how anybody can justify it not being a try.

Dip wrote:

That's what we've been saying. That it should have been a penalty try and therefore the conversion should have been under the posts instead of not under the posts. Another example of QLD being harshly dealt by the refs. Luckily we were able to overcome it and still win by 8. Somehow in all of that NSW fans seem to think they got the short end of the stick. Go figure.

I get a little emotional when I think about all this adversity we've overcome.

I mean I can understand the NRL's point of view and why they have had an agenda to even up their showpiece event....but for the QLD side to overcome all that should not be forgotten.

This thread is proof of why QLD supporters are absolute bellends. Not a humble person amongst them. It'll come back full circle eventually and then the death of origin will be back.

Honeysett wrote:This thread is proof of why QLD supporters are absolute bellends. Not a humble person amongst them. It'll come back full circle eventually and then the death of origin will be back.

A NSW fan calling QLD supporters bellends? That will do me. The year your lot won a series it was like the second coming of Jesus Christ.