It's getting very silly now isn't it? For the last couple of years we've seen tries given on a feather's touch from the tip of a finger. Tonight we saw one given for contact from an adjacent, vertical wrist. I wasn't at all surprised it was given, but is it time to do away with the nonsense groundings and go back to a proper rule of having to have control and downward pressure with the hand?

We've seen them given this season from the back of a flailing fingernail. The rules are that lax these days that I was convincing myself they were going to give the Briscoe one tonight as a try. On at least one of the angles there is a brief suspicion of contact with the grass and the back of the hand on the way down. Most of the stupid ones this season have been where a player is clearly losing the ball.

Saints lost did they? Seriously that Ryan hall try, taking the mickey. It's a bit of a lottery these days with vr decisions

I do think it was a strange one

He had less control over the ball tonight than he did for his disallowed effort against the Ockers last year

I think it was primarily given as halls fingers were under the ball.

Slow motion replays are misleading...hall never appeared to lose the ball in normal time. In slow motion virtually every player "loses" the ball as they place it down-its basic physics momentum of the hand versus the ball striking a substantially immovable surface

He lets go before it touches the ground.

I'm not just talking about tonight's one, we've seen so many daft ones this sesaon. These days it's a try if you drop the ball completely but the back of your fingernail is in contact with the ball as it hits the ground.

I thought he still had it.

But yes I agree. As I say, part of the problem is the reliance on slowmo replays. And not just for grounding, even Zaks try was referred for a double movement, something that's far easier to determine in real time!

And the VR rules are now a mess... Technically the Ablett one should have been given - ref gave it on the field and there is no way the VR could proove that was wrong as you couldn't see the ball for the whole play...however, I don't think Ablett grounded it!

I can't see how you can ground a ball with your wrist in the position Hall's was but it was consistent with what we have seen this season. So is it fair to moan about that decision? If he had his fingers underneath the ball has the ball been grounded?

I do agree tho it's a farce but I don't want to detract from what was the game of the season.

Touchdown!!!


That's the way the game is going.

For a try to be scored, the Laws say that a player with the ball has to "place it on the ground with the hand" The "downward pressure" thing only comes in when the ball is loose in the in-goal area.

it's a joke now, for me a try should only be awarded when there is a hand on the ball with downward pressure not a finger nail on the edge of the ball or a loose bit of skin on the wrist.

If this was not Leeds doubt we would be having this thread. There was nothing wrong with the hall try it was a try any day of the week in any era, just sour grapes

That's not true. It was a crucial call towards the end of a very close semi final. It would be discussed irrespective of the team involved.

Under the current interpretation (and it's the interpretation that is relevant not the wording of the rule in the rule book) it was a try. I've lost count of the number of times in the last 4 or 5 seasons I've watched VR replays and thought that will be given as a try but I don't think he had control of the ball. I would like the interpretation to be changed to the player having full control of the ball, not fingertip control or the ball is touching a wrist and there has been no separation.

we've had this debate all season no just since last night.

yes my team have benefited from some of those calls but it doesn't mean i agree with it.

But it was a try any day of the week, in any league!

it was given as a try, yes but the debate is that losing control of the ball and having half a finger underneath it shouldn't constitute "downward pressure"

Yes it should if your hand is under the ball as Halls was it will always be 100% a try.

Massive sour grapes from Saints and Hudds shocker.

sorry but Hall's fingers weren't under the ball, far from it, there might have been some part of halls hand(certainly not his fingers) touching the ball but that was contentious in itself, even under the current rules if a no try had being ruled nobody would have being surprised because we all know it was a no try.
The rules certainly do need changing, not to say in 'full control' because that in itself is difficult to determine but as shown by Hall's try and plenty of others merely being in 'contact' to the side of the ball should never be suffice to award a try, a fingertip on the upper part of the ball would IMO be suffice to give a try.
Removing the referees on field try or no try would be a start to making the rules more sensible/logical

The downward pressure in this instance can only come from his forearm as hand is under the ball ,with the body lurching forward.His bloody forearm is vertical so is the VR saying his belly supplies sufficient downward pressure I agree saddened along with what constitutes a forward pass 'downward pressure' has become a joke.I think control of ball should mean control,hand on top not friction from wrist hairs.

Hmmm, it seems many on here have changed their tune since the England game in Melbourne

no sour grapes from me i'm just offering my opinion

Certainly is, they might as well put the try into 2 categories. A dead certain placed try = 4 points, a dubious unsure try over the line = 2points (Or a pop shot at goal instead). I would also change the video ref time to judge at 1 minute, beyond the minute it goes back to the field ref decision, no further replays after that only at normal match speed from the field ref position.

People seem to be selectively ignoring this. However it is correct. Downward pressure is irrelevant to the Hall try, that's to do with kick chases etc.

All that matters is did he place the ball down without losing control. The VR ruled he did as his fingers and/or wrist remained continuously in contact with the ball.

The rule should be if the ball isn't grounded with at least 1 hand on the ball it isn't a try.

Or if the ground is what prevents the player losing control, like with the Hall try then it's a knock on.

It's been a joke for a long time now. For the honesty of the game, that Hall try should have been wiped off. It is legal currently so honestly we can't argue. But it does need to change in the off season. I would suggest it has to be either the palm flat on the ball, or at the very least 4 fingers on top of it. One finger nail or a forearm just isn't enough to call down with pressure. Before that point they will have had the ball much more secure so clearly at some point they lost that amount of control to only be putting it down with their arm hairs.

I don't like it but every rule has issues.
Where is the certain black and white line with control.
Where does the hand start and end?

There are lots of debating points.

For me sinfields 40/20 is far more telling he does not kick that and Saints are odds on to win