I'd like to see the law incorporate a bit more about control of the ball (although tbh, I think it already does) but insofar as this particular incident is concerned, I'd probably leave the law the way it is. Having just re-watched the incident, I don't think it is a try even by the letter of the law. I think the opinions expressed here are largely a function of Cricsimmers caring more about Sheens failing than they care about winning a Test match.
Geez I think you go too far there. I was highly relieved when it wasn't called a try because I'd have been fucking spewing if we'd been knocked out (the way Widdop was kicking he would've landed the winning conversion). As much as I loathe Sheens and his selections, I still want Australia to succeed. I just don't see how you can award Jennings's but not that one. Neither of them had control and only barely had finger-tips touching the ball. It was a try IMO.
Is it really though? It isn't that much of a stretch from what you've said there. While they both fall under that issue of "control while grounding the ball", I think they are at different ends of the spectrum. I mean, at least Jennings' try looked sort-of OK at first and then got more dubious when you saw the replays, whereas Hall never looked like he had a try.
What? Jennings had complete control of the ball right up until the point where the ball hits the ground. Then it bounces out. No different to when some player slams the ball down one-handed and it bounces out of his hand straight away. It just looked awkward because it came out after he grounded it - repeat AFTER he grounded it.
Granted, but that's largely something you say when you've just seen him utterly fuck up the selections again. Bit angry in the moment. I can assure you I did not want that to be a try. I just think it was.
I wanted it to be a try, for several reasons... the biggest of which being the fact that I hate to see poor refereeing decide the outcome of matches and it was a clear try.
Nah, lay off it, it is certainly not a clear try. If it is a try, it is a try on a most technical of technicalities. Grazing the ball with your fingertip hasn't been a try in my lifetime and it shouldn't ever be. A try should be about grounding the ball in-goal with some degree of control.
Logically it shouldn't be a try, but is is. Shoulder charges shouldn't be illegal, but they are. Players shouldn't be penalised/suspended for accidents in tackles, but they are. There's heaps of rules that don't really make sense, But they are the rules. And need to be adhered to. You can't have refs ruling different things based on their own ideas of what they think should happen, or it rather defeats the purpose of having any rules in the first place.
Yeah, absolutely this. I don't think we're far away from NoTryers quoting The Castle here and making an argument about it being no try because of the vibe of it. <object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/wJuXIq7OazQ?version=3&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="//www.youtube.com/v/wJuXIq7OazQ?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object> I'd be much more inclined to quote Goughy from CricketWeb though, who said: I don't care about dem feels or your innate sense of what you think should be a try; this is absolutely a try: I hate it when someone puts in a grubber but it goes straight to a defender in the line who runs 95m+ to score. I hate it when someone scores a try off a ricochet. I hate it when the ball hits some cunt's chest, bounces into the in-goal and then he dives on it to score. I hate it Ben Hunt runs the ball on the blind side on the fourth tackle and, for some reason, no-one sees it coming and he strolls right through. I hate it when someone scores like Michael Jennings, losing control of the ball in the process of putting it down (which afaic is much less of a try than Hall's). I hate lots of methods of scoring, some much more than the Hall try, but I'm never going to argue that they're not tries. The ball was on the ground and he applied downward pressure with his hand. This isn't an argument about separation when he's actually lost the ball; he's simply grounded it. I pretty much have no time for any other interpretation here -- it's not a grey area or a 50/50 call; it's just a clear try with the benefit of replay (which we had).
Yep. As ugly as they come and it feels instinctually wrong (even he wasn't sure he'd scored) but that shot there proves it's a try.
The hyperextension of his finger is further proof of this supposed elusive downward pressure too. I can't see how there can be any argument.
