Key refereeing decisions last night - discuss, don't troll

[Philhawk]

Some can't help themselves. If you touch the ball, it goes forward and you knock it 20 metres backwards with your head, it is a knock on. Knock it back with your hands or feet before it touches the ground or another person, it is play on.

Actually that's wrong mate. I remember the Dragons vs Storm game at Oki Jubilee a few weeks ago, Cooper Cronk passed the ball to Ryan Hoffman, it hit him square in the head and went flying ten metres forward. He followed through, picked it up and scored. It was deemed a try as it was knocked forward by his head, not his arm.

 

[tugga]

Actually that's wrong mate. I remember the Dragons vs Storm game at Oki Jubilee a few weeks ago, Cooper Cronk passed the ball to Ryan Hoffman, it hit him square in the head and went flying ten metres forward. He followed through, picked it up and scored. It was deemed a try as it was knocked forward by his head, not his arm.

Correct Philhawk. From what I remember, the commentators were saying that the correct decision was a try, but that the rule should be changed.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

The King 'non-try' was a definite try. i can't believe people saying it wasn't. Sorry, I don't mean to be antagonistic, but in my opinion, after seeing the incident a few dozen times (yes I know that seems a bit excessive) it was a clear try. The ball came off Hodges first. I am in no doubt.
Anyway, benefit of the doubt goes to the attacking team.

This is the key. At the time of the try, there was 3 replays. One aerial shot which did nothing except establish onside and two from the closest touch line. At the time I saw the ball hit Hoffman's arm. I watched it on the game replay and drew the same conclusion.

I've just gone and watched it about 20 times on the video again, without the benefit of freeze frame as my video remote won't let me do it. After the first 10 replays, I suddenly went 'wow, Hoffman didn't touch it'. Hit Hodges hands and Hoffman's arm hit Hodges hands. Storm fans are quite right.

Then I continued to watch it because I couldn't understand how the mind could play tricks on me so much from my original estimation. So each time I am watching a different thing, the ball, Hodges' hands, Hoffman's arm, watching how each individual factor comes into it.

Next thing I notice is that Hoffman's arm actually elevates above Hodges' hands prior to the ball hitting and sort of hooks around so that Hodges' hands are now at forearm level of Hoffman's arm where the forearm was at a 45 degree angle, Hoffman's arm had contacted Hodge's hands before the ball landed, Hodges' hands were starting to slide down Hoffman's arm due to the impact and angle of the forearm. The ball appears to go in between Hodge's hands and Hoffman's forearm, most likely contacting both within a microsecond at the apex where the hand meets the forearm.

So now I have gone from a Hoffman touch to a Hodges touch to a dual touch. Due to the positioning of Hodges' hands, it looks definite that the ball touched Hodges, due to the way his hands were coming down the forearm and the size of a hand positioned the way it was versus the surface area of the ball, it appears definite that the ball has also impacted on Hoffman's arm, above where Hodges' hands were. Impossible to tell what hit first, the eye will tell you Hodges but you can't see any light between parts of Hoffman's forearm and the ball. So I am back to probably 50-50 technically but in reality maybe 60-40 Storm's way as I now know it is impossible it did not touch Hodges.

One thing that is clear to me having done this exercise. Harrigan could have sat there for 10 minutes and still not been sure. He did not have the right angles to work with either. Factor in the direction of travel and it is obvious that the propulsion of the ball was due to Hoffman's arm. This is a bit of a hole in the laws of the game IMO. Hoffman was never going to make a realistic catch on the ball with the one arm, with the angle of the arm, he was never going to realistically bat it backwards. While he did contest the ball and not the body of Hodges, his primary intention was to prevent Hodges from catching it and cause a spillage.

I would hate to see it become commonplace where you can knock someone's arms away inadvertently or otherwise and cause the ball to go forward regardless of who it touched and score the try from it. It really goes against the spirit of the game I believe. Hodges didn't drop the ball, Hoffman knocked the ball from Hodges.

So to sum up (no abuse, I think I've been pretty objective and flexible here), I'd go 60-40 Storm's favour on this call in terms of probability and technicality, but can understand how the video ref call was made (accusations of corruption are absolutely fanciful considering the footage at the time). Considering the ball came out because of Hoffman's actions and not from a Hodges error, in the interest of what is just, I have no issue with the call.

I can hear the chorus of 'rules are rules' now but I am not 100% sold on the contact, just leaning more towards the probability side. Considering Hodges made the only realistic attempt at catching the ball and the fact it was propelled towards the Storm's tryline, I believe justice was done.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Actually that's wrong mate. I remember the Dragons vs Storm game at Oki Jubilee a few weeks ago, Cooper Cronk passed the ball to Ryan Hoffman, it hit him square in the head and went flying ten metres forward. He followed through, picked it up and scored. It was deemed a try as it was knocked forward by his head, not his arm.

What can I say?

SECTION 10
KNOCK-ON AND FORWARD PASS
Deliberate 1. A player shall be penalised if he deliberately knocks
on or passes forward.
Accidental 2. If, after knocking-on accidentally, the player
knocking-on regains or kicks the ball before it
touches the ground, a goal post, cross bar or an
opponent, then play shall be allowed to proceed.
Otherwise play shall stop and a scrum shall be
formed except after the fifth play-the-ball.
Charge-down 3. To charge-down a kick is permissible and is not a
knock-on.
Heading the ball 4. It is illegal to head the ball in a forward direction.

2004 Laws of the game
http://www.arlfoundation.com.au/fileadmin/user_upload/arl_laws.pdf

Mind you I was talking about the part that states 'after a knock on', not a direct pass on to a head. That never touches the hands. I was discussing the validity if Hoffman did knock the ball forward and then it hit his head and went backwards, not the ball simply hitting his head without the arms involved.

I do remember the SOO where the ball came off Hodgson however and they said it was play on.

I too am confused. When evaluating these things. I prefer not to go on the interpretation of the laws of the game and go on what seems fair. You cause the ball to go forward and don't regather in the appropriate fashion before it touches someone else or the ground, you suffer the consequences. I don't care about the rules in those situations, I care about justice.

Did Qld deserve to be scored on after Hodgson failed to catch that ball? Not a chance. Did St George deserve to go down a try after the ball was propelled off Hoffman's head? Not a chance. Did the Broncos deserve to be score on after a ball that Hodges looked to have covered was knocked away due to a collision impact? I don't believe so. This is where the bomb gets ugly IMO.

 

[dr nick]

Thanks for the thread ODN

*First penalty goal to the Broncos to make it 2-0. Only saw this one once but it looked like he lost control, not a strip. Bad decision.

Worse than you think. Slater was off, had a huge overlap and were denied a length of the field try.

*Second penalty goal to the Broncos to make it 10-8. Head high tackle on Berrigan by Slater. He was heading down as he attempted to step Slater but Slater was wrong footed and hung out an arm. The penalty was definitely there however Berrigan did get a shepherd immediately before the incident and it should have been a penalty to the Storm. Bad decision.

Penalty was there for the head high, unlucky due to the player falling into it though. You're right on the previous shepard, and that would have been a penalty every time in the regular season. In big games ref's put their whistle away for 50/50 plays like that and wait to use the video ref. Kudos would have to go to Berrigan who instead of splitting the yawning gap, ran into the line of defensive players, denying the ref the opportunity to go upstairs.

*Try to Tate to make it 14-8. Some have said they only scored that try because the feed went to the Broncos after the Hodges touch put the ball over the sideline. The Hodges touch occurred after that try. Genuine try.

I can't recall this one, will have to watch again.

*No try call on King. Have watched this again today, taped that part and watched and watched. While I concede there is a possibility Hodges got the faintest of touches on the ball, the video simply shows definitely Hoffman's arm making contact and propelling the ball forward and collecting it with his head as his momentum carrying it forward. Phil Gould made his testimony in the commentary even worse by declaring after 3 replays that he didn't think Hoffman had even touched the ball. Probability says 50/50, the video says No Try.

Good summary, people got swept up in the Phil Gould hysteria (often happens when Ch9 personnel don't know what theyre talking about, the deluge of talkback callers the next day). The touch was definitely there, and I thought the probability suggested a knock on. At best it was a double knock on with a scrum feed to the Storm, but it was no try. In the end the right call was made with this one.

*Hodges touched a Storm pass and it went over the sideline. Ref awarded the feed to the Broncos wrongly. Bad decision.

Scrum was for the forward pass from Slater. Good call. The fact that Hodges touched the ball after didn't come into it.

*Lockyer field goal to make it 15-8. Once again argued that it wouldn't have been down there were it not for the non-call on the Hodges touch. In fact the field goal occurred a few minutes AND several sets later. Genuine field goal.

Nothing wrong with the field goal. Agree with your comments.

Not trying to open up old wounds but more interested in a fair account rather than those that want to put an asterisk against the Broncos on one viewing with an overtly biased commentator.

more power to you ODN!!! Definitely one of the more mature attitudes i've come across when speaking to either Storm or Broncos supporters!

 

[dr nick]

Fair enough, I didn't watch it in real time and missed it on the replay as well. Only saw it on an edited highlight where it appeared to slip out the side and once again the commentary and subsequently the highlights voiceover had me believing it was a bad call. Proves my point about how commentary can sway people.

Also something that hasn't been brought up, is that Simpkins could have used the video ref for this one.

 

[camsmith]

No I didn't watch it. Did they freeze frame it? I also didn't take note of Phil Gould who wears his heart on his sleeve and doesn't worry about the vision.

As for most people agreeing:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3816148a1823,00.html

Yep they had it in slow motion, paused it at the crucial point etc... they all agreed and i reckon most people who would have watched it would agree it should have been a try.

As for your later post suggesting you are 60-40 in favour of it being a Storm try... all that is needed is a 50-50 for it to be a Storm try because of the benefit of doubt rule.

I'm still wondering why Harrigan only looked at it twice, wish he could tell us why that was so.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

As for your later post suggesting you are 60-40 in favour of it being a Storm try... all that is needed is a 50-50 for it to be a Storm try because of the benefit of doubt rule.

You are talking by the book here and that is what matters. As far as justice goes though, there is no way the Storm deserved that try as Hoffman instigated the collision and caused the ball to go forward, regardless of which player it came off. There was no error made by Hodges and if Hoffman wasn't there, it would have been a safe catch.

They talk about the Storm being aggrieved that the try was disallowed. If I was one of the Broncos, I would pretty upset if the try was awarded and it cost them the flag. Sometimes the rule book itself is very unfair and needs to be updated.

I think in these tight situations, they should take into account who caused the spillage. I'd certainly not like to see players taking fullbacks arms out to cause the spillage in the future.

 

[mcglede]

Sorry, you are saying Hodges could not possibly have fumbled the ball?

No chance in the world?

That's why the incident is called a 'contest'. Hoffman 'contested' the ball with Hodges. The ball was spilt, King touched down.

How about a simple admission that there were at least half a dozen iffy calls on the night, and EVERY one of them was ruled in brisbane's favour.

That can't be that hard can it?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Sorry, you are saying Hodges could not possibly have fumbled the ball?

No chance in the world?

That's why the incident is called a 'contest'. Hoffman 'contested' the ball with Hodges. The ball was spilt, King touched down.

How about a simple admission that there were at least half a dozen iffy calls on the night, and EVERY one of them was ruled in brisbane's favour.

That can't be that hard can it?

I'll tell you what. Since you have ignored almost every point I have made and only concentrated on taking certain things out of context, I will refuse to give you the benefit of doubt as a reasonable poster and consider you a hostile ignorant. Thanks for being a prat.

 

[Aucklander]

No try. Hoffman knocks on.

 

[zap brannigan]

You are talking by the book here and that is what matters. As far as justice goes though, there is no way the Storm deserved that try as Hoffman instigated the collision and caused the ball to go forward, regardless of which player it came off. There was no error made by Hodges and if Hoffman wasn't there, it would have been a safe catch.

They talk about the Storm being aggrieved that the try was disallowed. If I was one of the Broncos, I would pretty upset if the try was awarded and it cost them the flag. Sometimes the rule book itself is very unfair and needs to be updated.

I think in these tight situations, they should take into account who caused the spillage. I'd certainly not like to see players taking fullbacks arms out to cause the spillage in the future.

your talking nonsense here, you obviously dont know the rules of league.
you are allowed to challenge for the ball in the air.

and as someone else pointed out the video ref harrigan should have applied the benefit of the doubt rule which goes to the attacking player.

watching the video it's impossible to determine with 100% certainty whether the ball came off hodge's hands or hoffman's forearm so the benefit of the doubt goes to the storm and it's a try........game on.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

your talking nonsense here, you obviously dont know the rules of league.
you are allowed to challenge for the ball in the air.

And you obviously can't read. I said aside from the rules, it is unfair to give up a try in that circumstance. Please don't come into a thread late, fail to read everything and then take stuff out of context.

I'm getting pretty tired of people attacking what is supposed to be a proper conversation. If you can't discuss, then stay out of the thread.

 

[mcglede]

...There was no error made by Hodges...

I think in these tight situations, they should take into account who caused the spillage. I'd certainly not like to see players taking fullbacks arms out to cause the spillage in the future.

I think you're right. Apart from him fumbling the ball...

So lets get the last point 100% correct. You're OK with the Billy Slater 'strip' because that's in the rules, however we should go outside the rule book and call it a no-try because Hoffman he 'caused the spillage'.

All right then ON. Lets go with that.

This would also mean that you have a problem with defenders shepherding members of the kicking team running through to challenge for the ball.

So in essence, the Broncos, who on at lesat one occasion blocked Greg Inglis several meters off the ball should have been penalised for a shepherd.

See the problem? You can't go from the rule book stands to the rule book should be changed back to the rule book should be changed.

It's nice that you won money on the night and I agree that they were the better side on the night, but did they get a helping hand from the refereeing?

The answer is quite clear, as several 50/50 decisions went against Melbourne, and none went against Brisbane.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I think you're right. Apart from him fumbling the ball...

I disagree, Hoffman's arm knocked his hands away and propelled the ball forward. He didn't fumble it, he didn't even get a chance to grab it.

So lets get the last point 100% correct. You're OK with the Billy Slater 'strip' because that's in the rules, however we should go outside the rule book and call it a no-try because Hoffman he 'caused the spillage'.

Let's keep discussing your comprehension skills. Opening post ...

*First penalty goal to the Broncos to make it 2-0. Only saw this one once but it looked like he lost control, not a strip. Bad decision.

All right then ON. Lets go with that.

Let's.

This would also mean that you have a problem with defenders shepherding members of the kicking team running through to challenge for the ball.

So in essence, the Broncos, who on at lesat one occasion blocked Greg Inglis several meters off the ball should have been penalised for a shepherd.

Well, let's just go back to the opening post again and check those comprehension skills once more.

*Second penalty goal to the Broncos to make it 10-8. Head high tackle on Berrigan by Slater. He was heading down as he attempted to step Slater but Slater was wrong footed and hung out an arm. The penalty was definitely there however Berrigan did get a shepherd immediately before the incident and it should have been a penalty to the Storm. Bad decision.

See the problem?

Yes, it is becoming very clear that you did not read the opening post before you replied ... twice.

You can't go from the rule book stands to the rule book should be changed back to the rule book should be changed.

I didn't.

It's nice that you won money on the night and I agree that they were the better side on the night, but did they get a helping hand from the refereeing?

Are you getting me confused with someone else? I didn't win any money, I didn't bet on the result, the Broncos are not my first side. I don't even know that the Broncos were the better side on the night. I thought the Storm always looked like they would run over the top of the Broncos until the Broncos steadied late. The Broncos did get a helping hand from the ref, no doubt about it. The only thing I have argued in all of these threads is that the refereeing did not take away a GUARANTEED storm win, but it did take away their momentum and their chance to win.

You probably need to do search of my posts relating to the GF because I have tried to be as objective as possible the whole time. Being honest is not often appreciated however.

 

[camsmith]

You are talking by the book here and that is what matters. As far as justice goes though, there is no way the Storm deserved that try as Hoffman instigated the collision and caused the ball to go forward, regardless of which player it came off. There was no error made by Hodges and if Hoffman wasn't there, it would have been a safe catch.

They talk about the Storm being aggrieved that the try was disallowed. If I was one of the Broncos, I would pretty upset if the try was awarded and it cost them the flag. Sometimes the rule book itself is very unfair and needs to be updated.

I think in these tight situations, they should take into account who caused the spillage. I'd certainly not like to see players taking fullbacks arms out to cause the spillage in the future.

By the book is how it should have gone when going to the video ref. If the video ref doesn't "go by the book" and goes with "whats fair" then no one will ever know what the bloody hell is going on.

It doesn't matter if the storm deserved the try or not, its whether they actually scored it or not. And if you go by the book, the kick was put up, Hoffman was on-side he raced through and went up for the ball, the ball hit Hodges arm (who's arm was on top of Hoffman's) bounced off his cheek, onto Hoffman's head and into Kings arms to score a try.

By the book, taking in account the benefit of the doubt rule, that is a try every time... well every time except this time.

Whatever it was, it obviously wasn't clear-cut... but with the video refs only watching it twice they obviously thought it was. So what did they see? A knock on from Hoffman? Wish they could show me, the channel 9 commentators, the Fox sports commentators, Kingy, Storm supporters and a majority of league fans where the still image of Hoffman actually making contact with the ball is.

I bet they couldn't.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

By the book is how it should have gone when going to the video ref. If the video ref doesn't "go by the book" and goes with "whats fair" then no one will ever know what the bloody hell is going on.

It doesn't matter if the storm deserved the try or not, its whether they actually scored it or not. And if you go by the book, the kick was put up, Hoffman was on-side he raced through and went up for the ball, the ball hit Hodges arm (who's arm was on top of Hoffman's) bounced off his cheek, onto Hoffman's head and into Kings arms to score a try.

By the book, taking in account the benefit of the doubt rule, that is a try every time... well every time except this time.

Whatever it was, it obviously wasn't clear-cut... but with the video refs only watching it twice they obviously thought it was. So what did they see? A knock on from Hoffman? Wish they could show me, the channel 9 commentators, the Fox sports commentators, Kingy, Storm supporters and a majority of league fans where the still image of Hoffman actually making contact with the ball is.

I bet they couldn't.

When I talk about fairness instead of by the book, I mean in terms of how the game is remembered. Potentially a couple of cms difference and the ball clearly would touch Hoffman first and he would have knocked on, he was in no position to do anything else but knock on. I don't look at that decision and think, that was a great Melbourne Storm try and it should have been awarded. If it was awarded, I would have thought it was a very fortunate Storm try and Hodges would have felt aggrieved that his arms were knocked away from the ball.

I talked about by the book and I talked about fairness. I never said they should have made the decision based on fairness, just reflecting how it sits well with me because of the fairness factor.

I guess League is just one of those sports where collisions affect the direction of the balls travel all the time, and players get called for knock ons all the time because of it. Yet they also have ruling where somebody gets a touch on the ball and it is judged as not being played at.

I get your point about going by the book so there is no need to labour that point. The no try just sits well with me in the wash up because Hoffman caused the spillage and was not in a position to actually take the ball or bat it back. He might not have played the man deliberately but inadvertently, that is how it panned out.

 

[camsmith]

Ok, so it was an error on behalf of the video ref, yet because you dont think the Storm deserved it you're fine with the call.

Weird outlook on things, but fair enough.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Ok, so it was an error on behalf of the video ref, yet because you dont think the Storm deserved it you're fine with the call.

Weird outlook on things, but fair enough.

I'm fine with the result. To use a quote from 'The Castle' ... 'it's the vibe'.