Please view this video for the proof of this assertion.
Hopefully Mooooo LA LA land will be able to stop his pitiful whinging! My do these Kiwis bleat.
Of course their try where they double banked was not a try and Cane should have got a red for his foul against Kolisi. The Kiwis and under cover Kiwi supporter Mozzietard say nothing about all this.
Was it.
If the AB's scored like that against the Boks - It would be no try.
The ref and TMO WERE SHOCKERS.
I see Planet Rugby are also saying that Bongi's try was fine
I don't agree
Another video arguing the try was legit.
So oaks the Bok try was legit but the wee abs double banking try was not.
That mean we win by 11 points.
But consider this, the wee abs scored a very lucky intercept try and Sasha missed a sitter penalty.
The scoreboard flattered the well beatin wee abs.
I guess the KBBS will be whining g for years to come.
I do hope the ref will deal severely with. Crooking abs infringement near their goal line. This is a well worn method the wee abs use to cheat.
But Bongi has then lost control of the ball, in other words he is on the ground without the ball. He is not allowed to play it again.
There's a point where Barrett is lifting up on his arm where he doesn't seem to be in contact with the ball anymore. What we really need to see is what happens after the footage stops, because that will show us what he actually did to get the ball over the line after losing control of the ball. I don't get why that footage has been cut and isn't showing up anywhere.
BS in buckets Bongi had never let the ball without touching it and that meanms no knock-on could be judged as having happened. As long as he kept touching the ball it was a legitimate try. I watched he video repeatedly and that was confirmed in every video I watched.
However, the incident happened and a try was awarded and that is the end of the story - nobody can do anything about it - despite the moaning of the site prima donnas.
At this point he no longer has contact with the ball as you can see the shadows of his fingers on the ball.
despite the moaning of the site prima donnas
The only moaning is you, ou Maaik. The rest of us are having a discussion.
His fore arm might still be touching the top of the ball...all in all a lot of doubt...would like to hear an official response from the WR ref boss...they usually apologize to NZ if something like this happens. ..haven't yet, so...?
I thought he lost it…..but I could easily be wrong
Definitely lost it, but anyway. Three days until we have fresh controversies to deal with
That’s true, Pakie !
"He does not have to try rip it, he just has to make contact which he does and even if it does go forward it does not count as forward as it’s come off Barrett"
This is incorrect Dave, it actually does count as forward, purely because it did come off Barret and not Bongi
100% agree, it is advantage Boks, if it is forward off Barret
Where I was correcting you, is where you say it does not count as being forward if it comes off Barret, because it does, unless you were referring to it going forward off Bongi, in that case I read it the other way
The truth is probably, there is no definitive rule. Accepting under an odd rule, probably designed to cover other circumstances, Barrett knocked the ball on. It’s now in space floating between Bongi and Barrett.
Technically neither player is in possession. If Barrett knocked it on, did Bongi regain possession? Clearly not. At best he was in contact all the time.
But if the ball was knocked forward, that suggests Bongi’s possession was interrupted. That surely negates the idea that the ball was in Bongi’s possession all the time. And nothing he did from that point forward regained possession.
It’s an interesting point and flows from the absurd interpretation that as long as the player is touching the ball it’s a try. A clarification should be issued.
The reason why I maintain what I said earlier regarding Dave's statement, is purely down to Rugby law 11.2, which states the following.
"It is a knock-on when a player, in tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent, makes contact with the ball an d the ball goes forward"
Essentially, according to this law, the ball went backwards out of Bongi's hands, but forward out of Barrett's hands.... hence the allowed try.
I personally don't even think that Bongi had any control of the ball, but that's another issue entirely, but according to the Rugby law, "The ball can be grounded in in-goal: a: By holding it and touching the ground with it, or b: By pressing down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the players body from the waist to neck".
So what would happen then if a grubber was put through, and it is going along the side line, heading for the dead ball line, and a player runs over the try line and puts his foot down on the ball before he ends up in touch and before the ball goes over the dead ball line..... is this then not a try....
My guess is if he puts his foot on the ball he has kicked it….but it’s all rather vague. I believe it has to be the torso or arms/hands.
The rule about pressing down on it holds when it has been legally grounded. To legally ground it you have to have some possession. I still question, if it went forward from Barrett when did Bongi regain possession.
if it went forward from Barrett when did Bongi regain possession
That's the bit of footage we're missing, because when the current footage stops, the ball is still short of the line. We don't see the actual grounding over the tryline from the only conclusive angle. And yet you have these media idiots and analysts calling it a try when we've yet to see the ball actually over the line.