My mate Henry backed Kyle Feldt for first try-scorer in the Cowboys-Bulldogs fixture last night at 1300 Smiles, and was despondent after Dallin Watene-Zelezniak touched down adjacent the posts in the 15th minute.
A union man, my man Henry doesn’t watch a lot of rugby league, and thus would’ve torn up his ticket had he not placed the bet through electronic agency.
And yet, as we watched the first and subsequent replays of the play, I said to him: “Hold that electronic betting stub, my man, for this could very well be no try.
“Watch this: they’ll be finding a knock-on, or something, within that slow motion conflagration of man and other man.
“They’ll rock and roll through it, back and forth, looking at the little displacement of ball and hands.
“They’ll call it knock-on.
“For my money, Henry my man, this will be no try.”
Sure enough, the bunkermen decided the ball had come loose, or something, in DWZ’s kung-fu grip, and that was presumably enough to constitute a knock-on, for in the game of rugby league, you could knock the ball on by throwing it backwards over your head.
(The Roar)
And, sure enough, up it went on the biggie: “NO TRY”.
And Henry looked at me and said: “You know your Mungo my man. Respect.”
And then he celebrated when Feldt (whom I tipped him onto) scored the game’s first try 34 long minutes later.
And so Henry was happy, and DWZ backers were sad, though if they’re league people, they would not be surprised.
Because if there’s anything that looks like it possibly even might be a knock-on in rugby league, then rugby league will call it a knock-on.
Because consistency.
It’s what everyone has bayed for, screamed for. And the referees have delivered.
This is what consistency looks like. What do you reckon?
Consistency means there are no knock-backs. Consistency means any slight hint of ambiguity around possession of the ball in a tackle is deemed a knock-on, changeover, and so on, particularly when it comes to the exciting part of the game, the scoring of tries.
And if you think DWZ scored a try last night, then examine your feelings, Luke, and ask yourself: Did you demand consistency?
I know that you did. And this is what you’ve got, sports fan. This is what you asked for.
This is consistency.
And it’s consistently wrong.
“When did he lose the ball?” asked Dean Pay in the post-match post-mortem and there were no answers because journalists only do the asking.
(AAP Image/Michael Chambers)
And it was rhetorical question anyway. What Pay meant was: “He didn’t lose the ball, it wasn’t a knock-on, the try was scored, it’s how things are, but I’m not too bummed, my job is safe, we’ve won six of the last nine and could’ve beaten the Cows in their last game at 1300 Smiles with a bit of luck or if rugby league wasn’t so enamoured with consistency that it’s willing to get many things wrong as long as it’s not accused of the mortal sin of inconsistency.”
Or words to that effect.
And here we are.
Now, DWZ did not knock the ball on. It went from two hands to one hand, and back to two, and it was controlled well enough that he could place the ball bang down onto the ground.
There was no separation of ball and hand. It looked like he had last control – but had he? If it was not a knock-on, then… how can he have lost control?
It seems to come down to one’s interpretation of possession. If DWZ lost possession then surely he’s knocked the ball on.
But he didn’t knock it on. Watch it. The ball doesn’t separate from his hand. It squirts out, sort of, but there’s no separation. Thus how can he have knocked the ball on?
Nene Macdonald scored one against the Roosters in the Anzac Day match last year – I told a tale of it – and everyone howled that the ball had come loose in his grip as he flew through the air, and thus it was not a try.
But it was a try. The ball did not physically separate from his fingers. He may not have had absolute control of the footy. But so what? He didn’t knock it on. He regained control and slammed the footy on the paint, and the bunkermen flashed it up “TRY”.
And everyone lost their minds.
“That’s not a try,” said Phil Gould. “That’s not a try,” said Andrew Johns. “That is definitely not a try,” said Brad Fittler.
On the rival broadcaster and outward through the greater TV-watching public of Australia, the consensus was the same: that was not a try.
Even refs boss Bernard Sutton – the go-to man before Graham Annesley got the gig of political spinner and explainer-in-chief, and looking forward to his take on this one Monday – said it was not a try.
But it was a try.
Macdonald lost control but regained it in his fingertips and that was enough to force downward pressure on the footy on the paint. It didn’t touch anyone. It didn’t leave his grasp, tenuous as it appeared.
And everyone howled about consistency.
And today DWZ can score a try in which there was no separation of ball from hand, and thus no knock-on, and here we are, again, pissing into the wind.
And Big Gra will come out Monday or whenever and tell us the bunker boys got it bang on, or not, maybe because… Big Gra says so.
And onwards we’ll roll, consistently not awarding tries, consistently calling each dropped ball a knock-on, consistently pulling back every pass that even looks like it’s straight-across flat, though the rule says the ball has to go forward for it be, you know, forward, and that straight-across flat passes are not forward even if everyone in Row Z at 1300 Smiles bellows that it must be so.
“Funny game, rugby league,” said my man Henry the Rah-Rah, and I could offer no argument.
RoryStorm
Guest
Actually Terry, you're right. With all this technology, we are losing focus. I'd completely forgotten about that rule and yes a much better restart. I can't even remember when I last saw that rule come into play. Probably many rules have been changed. The one rule change I do like and that is when the player is going for the Try in the corner and it's still a Try if he hits the Tryline pole. I can't believe some of the things we are seeing from our wingers now. This weekend I have seen a few times where I have said, that can't be a Try, but turns out it was a Try. The wingers must appreciate the entertainment value they are giving with some of the athleticism towards getting that ball down over the line. We will probably see a flow on everywhere with that rule. The Ladies will be next, then the juniors teams. Give it twenty years and wingers will probably be diving over from the half way line to score a Try.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
The call to look at the game in normal speed and make decisions is from last century. Sports contests are decided often by millimetres or less and I can't see us turning the clock back. If fans , players and coaches really want less accurate yet quick decisions then that's how sport will evolve. It won't happen.
Tom G
Roar Rookie
My point is that they are so arbitrary in their interpretation now that a huge percentage of balls knocked back are ruled knocked forward. When a ball is ruled to have gone back it’s almost a surprise. So much so that it draws more attention and replays than an actual knock on. Of course they should get the officials to understand the difference but it seems there is little appetite for that.
The Barry
Roar Guru
I’ve watched it several times and I don’t see a single frame that CLEARLY shows he lost the ball. If it goes up as a try I don’t see how it’s overturned based on the video. As I said earlier I can live with the call because it’s a 50/50 - look at the conjecture here between learned students of the game all with access to slow mo replays
Rob
Guest
I had the Cowboys by 8. Had them by 7 last weekend.
Rob
Guest
So if someone offloads or throws a pass and the bails doesn’t go directly to the intended team mate but touches the ground and another team mate scores? No try because it looked arsy?
Rob
Guest
Albo the rule regarding knock on are clear you lose control of the ball into an opponent it’s a knock on. A knock on occurs when in the act of playing at the ball you propell it forward with the hand or arm. Was Morgan playing at the ball? If he wasn’t it’s probably not technically a knock on under the rules as they are currently written.
Rob
Guest
If Feldt isn’t there? Is that a serious comment? He lost his grip on contact with Feldt. Bloody hell next we should penalise the defence for tackling a player that stops them scoring. The direct question to the bunker was “Check DWZ hasn’t lost the ball into Feldt” so at normal speed an official has seen something that looked suspicious. Is this the same stance you took during SOO Napa “No Try “ over rule or Gagai foot on line split screen from 2 separate cameras not in sync?
Chris.P.Bacon
Guest
...hahaha...I read it in the Bulldog's forum first, you 'confirmed' it, then I read the Roar.....and it was off - all in a matter of hours. I didn't even get the time to be excited (if there was anything to get excited about)! Oh well....guess we'll keep the money for Fifita, Latrell and the Trbojevic boys! ;)
BA Sports
Roar Guru
Greg - The Bunker literally said that DWZ "right hand comes away for the ball". I saw no angle that showed his right hand conclusively came off the ball. We lose sight of his right hand but that doesn't mean it has come off the ball. Like i said elsewhere, i could have accepted the decision either way, by not over ruling the on field official - whatever he/she ruled. But not when the logic applied by the Bunker is flawed.
Rob
Guest
And the Bulldogs lost by 7?
Papi Smurf
Roar Rookie
And then what Tom? We turn the game into 13 man touch football? No dropped balls, no kicks, no scrums, no shoulder charges, no biff... the game will be played by marshmallows in the years to come. The game has already gone soft and departed from it's roots and evolved into a choreographed wrestling match that is starting to more resemble WWE than Rugby League. If the referees and the bunker can't tell a knock-on from a knock back, a forward pass from a legal one, and on-side from offside perhaps the NRL needs to recruit people who can draw a straight line and have a thorough grasp of basic geometry like surveyors and civil engineers? Or perhaps they should send their referees to Specsavers? Like I have said on many occasions, the video technology exists and is used in soccer and the NFL to draw lines across the screen to assist officials in their rulings. For a billion dollar organisation who pay their referees six figure incomes there has to be a more professional approach by the NRL which is currently being run by amateurs and "Yes Men".
Papi Smurf
Roar Rookie
About that Api Koroisau signing... Oops! The FOX Sports story made it sound like it was a done deal. Unfortunately, someone forgot to tell the Panthers! Koroisau signs with Panthers on three-year deal https://www.nrl.com/news/2019/08/30/koroisau-signs-with-panthers-on-three-year-deal/
Cranky of Croydon
Guest
The "post truth" era as applied to league
WarHorse
Roar Rookie
The only consistency we will get is that the NRL will most likely instruct the refs to now change their interpretation on these kinds of micro knock ons and nit picking decisions during the finals.
Rob
Guest
Firstly without the Video Bunker he scores. The fact they found him lose his grip on the ball whilst the ball is in contact with Feldt was and is a knock on according to the rules. It has nothing to do with a bobble that a player then gets contact on before down ward pressure. For once the Bunker saw something, that is its primarily job. Whilst talking rules and Bunker decisions can anyone tell me what actually part of deliberate Foran wasn’t guilty of blocking an attacker from catching the ball in the ingoal area. Also is it legal to take a support player out if he is behind the ball carrier ? When Morgan is brought down short of the line Wright is taken out of play whilst behind Morgan. Sure you can put your body in front of a support player but you certainly can’t take that person on suspicion by going past the attacker he is trying to support. The Bunker ruled Morgan correctly short but Wright was running in support as he got through the line? It was an illegal tackle by Lewis on a support player. I did comment during the game but it’s worth commenting on when supporters are looking at contentious calls IMO.
The Barry
Roar Guru
We all fly off the handle with emotional reactions when our team is involved...
Tom G
Roar Rookie
Simple solution then call all dropped ball dropped ball and not knock on. I’d be good with that.. at least it will cut the debate
Cugel
Roar Rookie
Agreed. And as is endlessly pointed out, anything is a knock-on. Except (this incident excepted) when scoring a try, where a player can drop it cold, but if a 1/25th sec frame can be found where and ball and ground are contiguous: *tweet* try.
Emcie
Roar Guru
Come on mate, give it up, even you yourself were blasting it as a 50/50 in the heat of the moment!