| |
Welcome to the NEW RLFANS.COM. After twenty-five years of service, the old site expired over the last few days. To maintain service we have had no option but to make an early switch to the new site which was in development/testing. Some elements of the new site are unfinished, such as; page numbering and quotations. We will fix these minor issues as soon as we can, please bear with us.
If you are having problems logging in, please try a different browser or platform, if problems persist then email support@rlfans.com
 |
| 
 |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 552 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jan 2005 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jun 2017 | Jun 2017 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
When Cudjoe gets up shaking his head and then waits for the VR decision on the 10metre line then anything other than a no try would bring the game in to disrepute. My initial reaction to Carvell was no try, but at full speed I can see how it was given.
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 31082 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Aug 2024 | Sep 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
So if he had passed the ball, would he have been allowed to play on?
Or if he had got up would he have been allowed to carry on?
He was down, he was in contact with a defender and [ihe had to project his arm to score[/i and its that last part thats the key in all this.
Please note, I am in no way arguing this point as a Huddersfield fan, but rather I would be taking this standpoint no matter who the teams involved.
| | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 28357 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| May 2024 | Oct 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote ="Code13"So are you genuinly saying Carvell did not extend his arm and promote the ball forward?
Are you actually saying that?'"
Was your question so good that you thought you'd ask it twice? Or do you think that being condescending helps you to discuss the point?
What I am saying is pretty simple: that he had not been stopped short of the line.
If he had been stopped short of the line, and then extended his arm to take the ball over the line then that would have been a double movement. But as he wasn't, it wasn't.
Quote ="Code13"So if he had passed the ball, would he have been allowed to play on?'"
I would say not. The ball-carrying arm had contacted the ground, and so the tackle would be complete at the point where his forward motion stopped. He couldn't "untackle" himself.
Quote ="Code13"Or if he had got up would he have been allowed to carry on? '"
I would say not, for the same reason.
Quote ="Code13"He was down, he was in contact with a defender and he had to project his arm to score and its that last part thats the key in all ">this.'"
No, the fact that his forward motion had not been stopped is the key. You keep overlooking it.
|
|
Quote ="Code13"So are you genuinly saying Carvell did not extend his arm and promote the ball forward?
Are you actually saying that?'"
Was your question so good that you thought you'd ask it twice? Or do you think that being condescending helps you to discuss the point?
What I am saying is pretty simple: that he had not been stopped short of the line.
If he had been stopped short of the line, and then extended his arm to take the ball over the line then that would have been a double movement. But as he wasn't, it wasn't.
Quote ="Code13"So if he had passed the ball, would he have been allowed to play on?'"
I would say not. The ball-carrying arm had contacted the ground, and so the tackle would be complete at the point where his forward motion stopped. He couldn't "untackle" himself.
Quote ="Code13"Or if he had got up would he have been allowed to carry on? '"
I would say not, for the same reason.
Quote ="Code13"He was down, he was in contact with a defender and he had to project his arm to score and its that last part thats the key in all ">this.'"
No, the fact that his forward motion had not been stopped is the key. You keep overlooking it.
| |
|
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 4932 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Oct 2006 | 18 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2025 | Feb 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Fortunately this incident was not the one that decided the match. That appears to be when the Huddersfield players decided they would take control away from Nathan Brown and do as they pleased.
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 5110 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2025 | Aug 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="GiantDee"BoTD was a ridiculous decision as there was nothing that the video ref could not see, he can see the ball carrying arm down and the subsequent movement, he has to decide whether that was a double movement or not. He could decide Try or No Try and whatever he chose some would disagree, however there was no act that he could not see, so why BoTD.
From my vantage point behind the sticks I thought clear double movement, but I am biased. What was more interesting was Silverwood's actions. Danny Brough was having a moan, pointing at the screen, watching the screen Silverwood was still talking to DB and appeared to agree with him. He then actually moved out of in goal to a position to award a penalty.
Before the decision came up on the screen his hand went to his earpiece and he appeared to be querying the decision. By the look on his face as he was talking I very much got the impression that he did not agree. Again as pointed out by others this was a different interpretation to Ryan Hall's "no try" the previous day.
Fortunately in the long run it did not matter in this match, but the VR decisions need to be less controversial for the health of the game - remeber the Grand Final offside try a couple of years back? It would be better for the game to have Silverwood or whomsoever make a decision as they see it, right or wrong, than delay the game to still often get it wrong (either the Carvell or Hall decision was wrong as they were different interpretations of very similar actions)'"
Ridiculous post. If Silverwood thought it wasn't a try, then surely he would have given the penalty instead of going to the VR. | | | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 31082 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Aug 2024 | Sep 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
@FA
No I dont keep overlooking it at all, you keep fixating on it.
What you are overlooking is
a) His momentum alone would not have carried him over the line
b) He made an extra effort to extend his arm over the line
One alone means its a double movement. Both together is pretty clear under the rules its a penalty, no try.
If he had simply rolled over and the ball had crossed the whitewash, no argument its a try. But thats not what happened is it. The only way he scored that try is by a projection of his arm, the very definition of a double movement according to the rules on the RFL website.
| | | |
| |
All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or its subsites.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.
RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.
Copyright 1999 - 2025 RLFANS.COM
You must be 18+ to gamble, for more information and for help with gambling issues see https://www.begambleaware.org/.
Please Support RLFANS.COM
|
|
| POSTS | ONLINE | REGISTRATIONS | RECORD |
|---|
| 19.67M +1 | 495 | 80,283 | 14,103 |
| LOGIN HERE
or REGISTER for more features!.
When you register you get access to the live match scores, live match chat and you can post in the discussions on the forums.
|
|
|
