That Origin try: Did Inglis score or did the refs get it wrong?

as usual nsw and the nrl bosses get what they wanted even Phil Gould is happy yes Phillips it was forward pass in that nsw attempt and ingless try was a try and if he was a blue it would be .

It is pertinant to remind all and sundry that NSW make all of the rules. (They also pick the refs etc) By the rules this was a try. Does this mean that in the spirit of the game it was a try as we would plainly understand it - no BUT it was the referees job to make a call based upon what the rules ARE not what the majority think they SHOULD BE. If the rules are so vague and maleable that this was a try (which it was but probably shouldn't be) then NSW fans, players and officials have no-one else to blame but themselves. I say that the rule should be that if you use your foot to dislodge a ball from an attacking players hands whilst he is in the act of scoring then (as this is well outside the spirit of the game) it should be a penalty try. Regardless of where the ball goes and if it rebounds off his arms and if he subsequently grounds the ball - PENALTY TRY - that would clear it right up. Again though if NSW fans don't like the rules their own officials made being correctly enforced by referees their own officials selected then really aiming their criticism at Harrigan, Meninga, Inglis et al is pointless. Also Man Hands is entirely correct - I have had a few friends proclaim that NSW gave up after this call (I'm not entirely convinced that they did as they still had another fair crack at the line soon after) which if it is indeed the case is the precise reason that NSW will lose this year and possibly a few more. It goes beyond ability and passion (I know these players have passion) but goes rather to pride and self belief which they are sorely lacking if they 'give up'' at any point.

That's been my argument from the outset. Farah's movement would suggest he was not striking/kicking at the ball but rather trying to get under it and it's very obvious that it's Inglis that forces the ball onto the leg. Farah has every right to try to get some part of his body under the ball. In this case Maroons argue that Farah isn't allowed to have his legs anywhere near the ball because if there's a leg there it must be trying to kick at the ball?!

If the so called PRO Greg Inglis fans believed that the try was legit. They wouldnt be wasting their time in this forum trying to prove a point. Watch GI at the end of the game shaking hands when he mouths the words NO TRY to one of the NSW boys, they shrug their shoulders. But thats the nature of the game. Bad calls are made and teams win or lose because of them. Think the biase would naturally be the other way if roles were reversed. No debate though that, striking a ball with your foot is illegal. (Matthew Ridge was the reason this rule was brought in, as it was a signature move of his). But striking requires a swinging motion and not planting motion as you can see Farrah does. Inglis places the ball on his leg and loses it. Whether he regathers it, or not, the ball makes contact with the opposing player therefore, constituting a knock on. Not unlike juggling a ball, and trying to regather it, then the ball making contact with a defender before you regather. Poor ball control as well. What I want to know is. Why? at that point, and that time of the game, not to mention being put on the spot. Would a TMO choose, out of all the possible "knock on" interpretations there could of been. To rule a try, when a singular technicality could be "ARGUED" to award it. I agree with an earlier comment. The TMO was actually looking for a reason to give it. I'm not being bias. Its obvious a lot of the greatest players have originated from QLD. But Elite games should not be decided on by poor TMO rulings.

It's a while since the incident occurred and there are those who still cannot get a handle on what is and what isn't when it comes to the decision in question . With all due respect to those who have entered into the debate , bias has been evident in all of the accounts that I have either read or heard on the matter , and you may include this effort in that category if you know that I am a Queenslander , however for what it ts worth this is my informed take on what has become the most contentious point debated in Origin , even if it wasn't a defining the winner of the match , in recent years. Point 1 Inglis had the ball in his position and about to ground it to claim a try . Point 2 , Robbie Farrah removed the ball from the Inglis grasp with his foot and would be regarded as playing at the ball every bit as much as Billy Slater was when the rule was created to prevent the action of using the feet to prevent the scoring of a try . Point 3 Inglis then has the ball strike his arm and is propelled forward to the ground before he Inglis places his hand on the ball claiming a try . THE CORRECT ANALYSIS OF THE SITUATION . FARRAH HAS USED HIS FOOT TO REMOVE THE BALL FROM THE INGLIS GRASP . THE BALL HAS REBOUNDED OFF THE INGLIS ARM , KNOCK ON . DECISION : PENALTY TO QUEENSLAND . For the doubters , why is it a knock on . The rule states , and always did , that a knock on occurs when the ball is propelled forward toward the opposition ingoal by the hand or arm , whether it so called "intentional" or not , there is no such thing as not playing at the ball if it comes off the hand or arm forward to the ground , opposition player or goal post , most importantly it was no try . Bill Harrigan didn't take time to think before wading into the bebate .

personal attack no1

Yes Inglis was playing at the ball because he first attempted to put the ball down only to force it loose off Farah's shin, he then tries to regather and ground the ball. I'll say it again, you are picking and choosing things out of the situation that suit your argument but ignoring those that refute it. It makes no sense that a football player in attempting to score a try somehow goes from playing at the ball to not (for a poofteenth of a second) playing at the ball and then again be playing at the ball! No human beings' brain is capable of computing that much info and make a decision in such a short space of time! No doubt your response to this will be some kind of personal attack.

I reserve the right to poetic license!!!

So you can play at it with your hand/s lose control, the ball touches the ground and rolls underneath you and that is considered grounded in goal by torso. Lets take all of the "skill" out of the game and just do away with offside, knock on and for good measure forward passes. Then instead of NSW v QLD we could have QLDa vs QLDb, since NSW aren't good enough cheats! It might sound easy to say but I liken this game to "catchgate", a couple of cricket seasons ago. I believe it was Ricky Ponting who "walked" after not being officially given, because he clearly felt that he was out but because he wasn't given and it would have caused up roar he did the "right" thing and walked. Inglis admitted to fumbling the ball so in his mind he knocked it on. I know it's too much to ask but if Inglis had have simply gone to the ref and said he wasn't claiming it as a try then perhaps QLD might have lost and rued that decision but had they still gone on to win, the victory would have been much sweeter. This way the whole thing has gone to rubbish. It would have been interesting to see the reaction to the same decision if things were reversed.

"NSW were getting the rough end throughout" Only in your mind.

Greg Inglis is the only New South Welshman in the Queensland team. If he's the only quality junior that NSW has produced over the last 10 years, then Queensland has poaached "them all". Inglis chose to play for Queensland because it has a long history of treating Aborigines with respect. NSWRL has been racist and disrespectful towards Aboriginals for a long time. Tahu made the decision to quit Origin a few years back due to the racist attitudes that were sprouted by Andrew Johns.

Inglis wasn't playing at the ball when it rebounded off his arms. He played at it when it was on the ground.

The point I was making wasn't to do with the possible outcome of a spear/lifting tackle. It was in relation to the adjudicating on the night and how NSW were getting the rough end throughout. Yeah it probably was the right call but the tackle was no worse than the one by QLD shortly after. Yet it was deemed OK. Another example was the Jennings send off. If you watch the replay starting from when Bird makes the initial tackle you see Brent Tate walk past Hodges to get into position on the wing. Then he disappears out of shot only to be seen running in from all but the same distance as Jennings does and get Lewis with two pretty decent shots. I know if I was on the outside and I saw my team mate get clocked a couple of times, I would be in there like Flash or in this case Superman too. Not to mention that they are also team mates at club level. Again, by no means am I suggesting it's OK but I would suggest that most "footy players" would react the same way when it comes to sticking up for their team mates. Having the benefit of the replays there is no reason Tate should not have been binned as well. Yeah I know just whining but I wish we could import all the data from that moment in time and recreate it so the 50/50 calls that went QLD's way go NSW's way and then get the reactions from QLD's fans to the loss and the bad calls. One last point, is there such a thing as 50/50 calls? If you think about it, a particular call may be considered 50/50 but what happens to the 50/50 probability if by the end of the game one team has received a greater majority of the 50/50 calls. Don't they become more like 60/40 or 70/30 for example, by the end of the game? In favour of QLD, in this case, of course.

As a NSW supporter this post just about sums it up. It's not about the result it's about the stupidity of the ruling.

Especially when QLD poaches them all!!!

If he wasn't playing at the ball why does he regather it?

"have ignored or tried to justify the the fact that it comes off Inglis’s arm after initially losing control i.e. knock on, by saying that he “didn’t play at it”" Go read the rules and listen to Harrigan's explanation. Both support what I said. Your team was lucky to score two tries of the boot. Queensland deserved the win for not conceding a try from a linebreak. NSW dominated possession, but didn't score off a linebreak! That's an indictment on how inferior NSW is to this QLD team. NSW need to lift their game if they plan on not being whitewashed.

I thought a knock on was when a player drops the ball in front of him and then it touches the ground, how was this any different with the Greg Inglis try? In reality it should have been no try. Makes me wonder... Who is paying the video ref to make calls like this? Lol

you would think with slater having a mare under the high ball, the blues would be able to take advantage of the situation. but they couldn't and didn't. even if the inglis try went unawarded, qld were already up by two and nsw didn't score any points. so eitherway, qld won the game. take your hidings like a man, you guys are sounding like poms.

I can't believe so many NSW supporters are still sooking about this 2 days later. The best one I have heard so far is ' yeah we lost by more than 6, but the blues knew they couldn't win after that try so they stopped trying '. LOL!! This kind of attitude is exactly why NSW has lost 6 in a row and will continue to lose for the foreseeable future. The fact is, NSW did dominate much of the game but couldn't convert it into points. Qld made the most of the limited opportunities they had.