Wood & Ganson not square at marker

[BenGilesRL]

http://www.totalrl.com/ganson-defends-james-child-brough-penalty/

Very interesting this. I can see both points of view.

On the one hand, the sight of someone deliberately throwing the ball at a player to get a penalty is very unsightly, and not in the spirit of the game.

On the other, the player should not be there, should have cleared the ruck, and is offside.

What do we think?

 

[Saint Toppy]

I don't like seeing players 'milk' penalties and this throwing the ball into an offside player is just one of them. We saw another instance penalised twice in the Saints V Leeds game where the player deliberately moves forward off the mark which automatically puts both markers in an offside position and means they can't then take part in the next play without retreating 10m (and usually results in gaining a penalty). Tom Briscoe is a master at doing this and its something I'm glad the Refs are starting to clamp down on.

Technically Ganson is right, the onus is on the tackler to move clear and retreat behind the PTB. If they don't then they run the risk of conceding a penalty 

[Dave T]

I have no issue with it whatsoever. If you allow accidental offsides then more of these players will suddenly struggle to get to marker and 'accidentally' find themselves in the way. 

I genuinely see no issues with this penalty. Don't be in the way.

[Spidey]

In the incident with Brough, I think he did enough to allow a quick play the ball to still take place, If he started to try and regain he is feet he would have caused more of an obstruction. 

I get when defenders are in the attacking line and a pass hits them - that's fair game as they are stopping attacking options, Brough wasn't.

Add to that Jones threw the ball forward deliberately at him - that's not a legal pass, if he'd passed the ball correctly (backwards) there wouldn't have been an obstruction 

[Spidey]

RFL just released statement to clarify position. 

[BenGilesRL]

Still sounds a bit vague to me.

Why not - if a player is in an offside position but lies flat and still on the ground - it is the attackers responsibility to avoid the player both with passing and running.

If any part of the player is in motion or upright, it is the defenders responsibility to avoid the attacker.

That's what I would do - effectively encouraging players in an offside position to get flat and allow play to continue - and encouraging attackers to avoid rather than seek contact.

Admittedly I would need tweaking to avoid player lying flat between the player and the ball etc but you get the idea - I haven't got time and money to spend on tightening all areas up like the RFL have.

Still I am glad they considering Section 15 from now on. If it feels wrong then penalise them.

[deluded pom?]

We are in for a torrid time if the officials want to use Section 15. There's going to be penalties galore every game. Or is it only to be used for a single incident? I agree with Dave, if the player wasn't offside the ball couldn't hit him.

[DavidM]

Clearing the ruck is one thing , but often players can't or haven't the time to move , or stay still thinking if they move they'll get in the way even more ! I think refs are far to pedantic blowing pens in the ruck. Often they don't need blowing , it's nothing or minimal or accidental or milked , and you get a stop start game . Refs should put the whistle away until it's absolutely necessary . Tonoften they blow pens like throwing confetti . Pens are so important nowadays there should be a high premium on them . In this regard the gamesmanship by jones was shocking - brough was trapped and jones could easily have played around him . He chose to cheat a penalty and it looked awful . Regardless of technicalities this needs stamping out , and the ganson argument purely masks what is basically cheating an advantage in my view 

[John Rhino]

In this case the answer was very simple. The ball went forward and hit an opposing player. 

Knock on. Head and feed to Huddersfield

[DavidM]

Interesting to see which ref has the guts to do that now , or penalise for Cummings' ' unsporting conduct ' . Especially after ganson's intervention ?

[Spidey]

1 hour ago, deluded pom? said:

We are in for a torrid time if the officials want to use Section 15. There's going to be penalties galore every game. Or is it only to be used for a single incident? I agree with Dave, if the player wasn't offside the ball couldn't hit him.

...but if Jones passed the ball legally it wouldn't have hit him so wouldn't be offside. 

If Jones chose to run from dummy half and "tripped" over Brough that would easily be a penalty. 

This sort of play would just open the floodgates. What's to stop the hooker launching a ball at a retreating defender in between the play the ball and the defensive line say 5m back- he is offside after all. If Jones did nothing wrong - at what point does it become wrong to throw the ball forward?

[Southstander13]

28 minutes ago, John Rhino said:

In this case the answer was very simple. The ball went forward and hit an opposing player. 

Knock on. Head and feed to Huddersfield

It was a deliberate forward pass, if the rules were being followed correctly then it should have actually been a penalty to Huddersfield. I cant remember seeing one given to be honest, and players do not deliberately do this so wont likely ever see a penalty given for this, however, its the first and only time I've seen an example where that rule should have been applied. It was my first thought at the time, he threw the pass forward with the intention to hit Danny Brough, it was a deliberate forward pass.  

 

[Ant]

We want a quick play the ball but the  penalise the defence for not clearing the ruck in time 

The defender literally can't win that policy 

[Dave T]

28 minutes ago, Spidey said:

...but if Jones passed the ball legally it wouldn't have hit him so wouldn't be offside. 

If Jones chose to run from dummy half and "tripped" over Brough that would easily be a penalty. 

This sort of play would just open the floodgates. What's to stop the hooker launching a ball at a retreating defender in between the play the ball and the defensive line say 5m back- he is offside after all. If Jones did nothing wrong - at what point does it become wrong to throw the ball forward?

I wasn't aware that the ball was thrown forwards - in that case I completely agree with your point that the first offence is the forward pass or knock on.

[Bullseye]

Happy with that statement.   Refs can use their own judgement.   

[Just Browny]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

I have no issue with it whatsoever. If you allow accidental offsides then more of these players will suddenly struggle to get to marker and 'accidentally' find themselves in the way. 

I genuinely see no issues with this penalty. Don't be in the way.

Certainly too many teams (I have one in mind) have taken the mick for a few years in terms of leaving their curly-haired captain lying prostrate in the middle of every ruck he is involved in.

I agree with you in that case, but there are certain cases where the attacker basically wins the play-the-ball and the defender simply has no chance to get away and is blocking neither the man playing the ball, the dummy-half, or inhibiting a pass either side. In those cases, deliberately chucking the ball at someone who is trying to hide is unsightly and shouldn't be permitted.

John Rhino and Southstander13 both have it spot on in their posts above though: in the case under dispute it was a blatant forward pass, arguably a penalty for a deliberate forward pass.

[Cumbrian Fanatic]

49 minutes ago, Southstander13 said:

It was a deliberate forward pass, if the rules were being followed correctly then it should have actually been a penalty to Huddersfield. I cant remember seeing one given to be honest, and players do not deliberately do this so wont likely ever see a penalty given for this, however, its the first and only time I've seen an example where that rule should have been applied. It was my first thought at the time, he threw the pass forward with the intention to hit Danny Brough, it was a deliberate forward pass.  

 

I was thinking this too when I saw the incident

16 minutes ago, Bullseye said:

Happy with that statement.   Refs can use their own judgement.   

My thought's exactly, there are so many variable that it is hard to write the rules to cover every eventuality so therefore a referee has to be able to use his discretion. In normal play that ball would not have hit Brough as he had to deliberately throw it forward, but if the pass had been intended for the first receiver or Brough had impeded picking the ball up or had impeded Jones from scooting then of course it's a penalty. Thinking about it, that's how the penalty could have been legitimately 'won' by attempting to rum from acting halfback

[BenGilesRL]

Will Section 15 also apply to holding the ball at the back of the scrum to earn a penalty?

 

I hope so

[shaun mc]

Isn't this where the 2 refs in Australia works, or removes some of the grey areas?

[Spidey]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I wasn't aware that the ball was thrown forwards - in that case I completely agree with your point that the first offence is the forward pass or knock on.

Here's the play:

‪http://www.skysports.com/rugby-league/news/12204/10776255/the-rfl-vows-to-clamp-down-on-unsportsmanlike-behaviour‬

[deluded pom?]

6 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Here's the play:

‪http://www.skysports.com/rugby-league/news/12204/10776255/the-rfl-vows-to-clamp-down-on-unsportsmanlike-behaviour‬

That's the first time I've seen it. I agree the penalty should have gone to Huddersfield. Jones should have been binned IMO.

[MikeFletchersBarmyArmy]

Attackers need to stop moving off mark to make markers offside, that should b punished, but there has to be punishment for defenders to not interfere in play the ball. You see it many times where defenders get in way at play the ball & slow it down but then it allows their defence line close them down quicker, it just encourages defenders to lay there without getting out of way.

[DavidM]

Basically speeding up the ruck so much has had the side effect of making it a mess .Players are all speed now as they've been told . Everything is secondary , even the rules . Slow it down a bit , firstly by making carriers stand up before they put the ball on the ground and then play it with their foot and we may start get a little structure back and a bit less of a tangled up mess

[fairfolly]

Ben Giles,

           Fully agree with your comment,re holding the ball in the scrum.The ball is always fed into the second row or the loose forwards feet which is a penalty in itself,but to then allow them to hold it there is ridiculous.Ganson needs to send a memo to all coaches that in future that will also be penalised.The crooked feeds are being allowed to speed the game up,somebody please tell me how holding the ball in the scrum is speeding the game up.You may as well go back to the original ruling of the ball being put in straight or a penalty.One step forward,two steps back springs to mind in this case.

[LeeF]

6 hours ago, Spidey said:

...but if Jones passed the ball legally it wouldn't have hit him so wouldn't be offside. 

If Jones chose to run from dummy half and "tripped" over Brough that would easily be a penalty. 

This sort of play would just open the floodgates. What's to stop the hooker launching a ball at a retreating defender in between the play the ball and the defensive line say 5m back- he is offside after all. If Jones did nothing wrong - at what point does it become wrong to throw the ball forward?

Imagine if he "tripped " and then trod on Brough before falling into him knees first. All accidentally of course