Yeah it isn't mate. You and many people have just assumed it is because of bizarre decisions like the one Klein made tonight. It's because different referees, expectedly, have different standards for what constitutes control, not because there is a higher standard of control for one than the other. However, there is a higher standard - It's natural to assign a higher standard for a bloke regaining it than one who already has it and is losing it but that is human error. It is not the interpretation. There is no distinction made in any of the press releases or statements saying otherwise.
Right so where in that video does the higher standard emerge? It doesn't. To the contrary. Several of those tries are of players already in control and losing it. We're not arguing about the distinction between downward pressure (the old) and control (the new). We're arguing about what constitutes control in any instance of grounding the ball. Incidentally, watch the Graham try at the end - like the Burgess try from end on it looks fine; from side on not so much --there is clear seperation and yet it is given despite him having no more and in fact far less control than Burgess. If anything Graham doesn't even have a finvr on it when it touches the ground. This human error, not a higher standard of control.
I'm not arguing about control in grounding the ball. I'm arguing regaining control when there is separation before attempting to ground the ball. Uate did the exact same thing as Burgess. There might be separation in your opinion but they obviously didn't rule it that way. If they did then they would've ruled that he didn't regain possession before grounding the ball. As they always do. If anything it proves that there is a higher standard
Not in the slightest. You're getting too hung up on the separation thing so leave that aside for a moment. Graham has no control because he's not in possession. He slams the ball down (again, let's pretend there is no separation). Burgess loses control and then slams the ball down. That is not a distinction in interpretation. It's a distinction in human error and inconsistency between various people. Uate's is not like Burgess's. Uate drops it and gets fingers on it from about an inch off the ground. Burgess has fingers on it from 8-10 inches above it. If slamming it down from that height doesn't constitute a satisfactory degree of control then I'm an astronaut. Yes the interpretation is fucked but Klein's standard of control is just as fucked. He doesn't get off the hook because he's taken the interpretation to the nth degree.
I agree that when looking at just the grounding it is perfectly fine. I've never argued that. I can't ignore the separation. It's the sole reason why the decision was correct. I've said that the interpretation itself is flawed and yes slamming it down should be good enough but it isn't and I stand by the belief that any other referee in the bunker would've done the same thing (don't forget there are 2 other officials in there that made a decision with him)
I'd bet my house that you'd have some of them ruling it a try, even if they were just deferring to the on-field decision. He had hold of the ball by any reasonable standard. It was a poor decision. Like Smith said you don't have to have it like an eagle's talons wrapped around its prey.
Yesh, I've got no idea what MF is on about in this thread. GYR is right, the interpretation all year is that the ball must be regathered if separation occurs before grounding to regain control.
That's why I revised it. Burgess regained control by any decent standard. But fair enough. I'll concede to being wrong with respect to the argument with GYR. I still think Klein is partly responsible though.
Sorry I hadn't read the rest of your to and fro. I sort of agree with where you're coming from, but by the 2016 rule book it was 100% the right decision (I understand you're not disputing that though).
Well I am actually. Even allowing for the change in interpretation, I think Klein is setting a standard beyond what's required. As I said, if you go through the last three seasons there are countless instances of players having less control than what Burgess did, many of them including separation and then slamming the ball down without "re-gripping" it.
Well I disagree with that then. I've seen a few examples that weren't as extreme as this that have been given a no try,.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UPPJn6OWQgk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> 38 seconds into that video is nowhere near as bad as the one last night.
The ball "separates" from his palm, thumb and index finger, however his middle, ring and pinky finger remain in contact with the ball until it's grounded. Shit decision.
Na. This isn't the same. BJ's hand and fingers come away and the ball is grounded by his torso and arm. That's a try too however imo.
