Rule clarification

[weloveyouwakefield2]

Watching Canberra v Souths and two things I wondered about.

1) if a defender has the ball in his own in goal and his ball carrying arm touches the ground, whether he intends to do or not, the ball is dead and it’s a goal line drop out? Is that not the case then?

2) when a player gets sin binned the 10 minutes relates to actual time rather than playing time which can be stopped? 
The Canberra full back gets sin binned on 10 mins 28 seconds or whatever and the commentators say he will come on with 28 seconds left to play? Is this a nrl thing or is it still actual time? 

[DavidM]

5 minutes ago, weloveyouwakefield2 said:

Watching Canberra v Souths and two things I wondered about.

1) if a defender has the ball in his own in goal and his ball carrying arm touches the ground, whether he intends to do or not, the ball is dead and it’s a goal line drop out? Is that not the case then?

2) when a player gets sin binned the 10 minutes relates to actual time rather than playing time which can be stopped? 
The Canberra full back gets sin binned on 10 mins 28 seconds or whatever and the commentators say he will come on with 28 seconds left to play? Is this a nrl thing or is it still actual time? 

The first one is interesting as I’ve seen refs call both ways , that the ball is dead ... and allowed the player to play on and try to escape the in goal . This game being an example .

Second is always playing time 

one rule I did like was the defender being allowed to drag CNK back in the ingoal after he flung himself down . More of that please , if you fall to the ground you’re fair game it’s your choice 

[Chris22]

For number 1, I think there was a rule change over here a few years ago that the ball had to be deliberately grounded in goal for it to count as a drop out. This was to prevent a situation where the player slipped and the ball touched the ground in his possession and a drop out was given, for example.

[sentoffagain2]

If the ball carrying arm touches the ground but not the ball the play should still be live.However if an opponent touches him while the arm and not the ball is in contact with the ground that would be a drop out under the sticks.The previous post is spot on.

[Damien]

18 minutes ago, Chris22 said:

For number 1, I think there was a rule change over here a few years ago that the ball had to be deliberately grounded in goal for it to count as a drop out. This was to prevent a situation where the player slipped and the ball touched the ground in his possession and a drop out was given, for example.

That's indeed correct and I remember that rule change.

[Griff]

Bit of clarification needed in the OP.

"The ball carrying arm" is different from "the ball".   The reference to ball carrying arm is more to do with a tackle being complete. For a drop out - or a try - we need to consider what's happening to the ball.

[Dunbar]

5 hours ago, DavidM said:

one rule I did like was the defender being allowed to drag CNK back in the ingoal after he flung himself down . More of that please , if you fall to the ground you’re fair game it’s your choice

100% with you on this one.  If players want to 'find the ground' near their own line then they should be fair game to an attacking player.  This idea that the first hand on them completes the tackle is a bit weak for me.

[DavidM]

14 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

100% with you on this one.  If players want to 'find the ground' near their own line then they should be fair game to an attacking player.  This idea that the first hand on them completes the tackle is a bit weak for me.

Indeed . It looks bad to be let off so lightly for that premeditated action . Even worse when a defender is penalised . It’s a physical contact sport , if you try to avoid it you really should have no rights as to what happens ( within normal tackling rules ) . I do feel there’s to much throwing yourself down ... to escape the in goal , avoid the sideline , negate obstruction etc . It’s not a good look .As well as allowing these guys to get smashed ,  I do feel we should use the forgotten voluntary tackle rule as well if a defender has the nous to stand off .  Surrender is a bad call for a game like rugby league 

[DavidM]

Just now, Dunbar said:

Indeed.  The law says "A player in possession shall not deliberately and unnecessarily allow himself to be tackled by voluntarily falling to the ground when not held by an opponent. If a player drops on a loose ball he shall not remain on the ground waiting to be tackled if he has time to regain his feet and continue play."

https://www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/rules/laws_of_the_game/tackle__play_the_ball

But its not the only law we ignore is it.

Absolutely correct . Certain laws are rigorously enforced and flagged up by refs bosses - hence refs find them for their KPI’s , but others seem less important or are mothballed . 

[fairfolly]

Stuart Cummings is always right,is he not?

[DavidM]

5 minutes ago, fairfolly said:

Stuart Cummings is always right,is he not?

He seems to be straying more n more into the realms of stating the bleeding obvious. We had the cracker of ‘ the ball must go between the posts to count as a goalkick ‘ and the belter ‘ he must retain possession and put it down over the line ‘ then last night ‘ he must get rid of the ball before going into touch ‘ . Priceless comments , worth every penny 

[Wollongong]

This is one of the problems while we don’t have a unified set of interpretations across the game... nrl screw around with the rules to appease the press, and RFL tinker around to try and increase popularity. 

I was screaming at the screen that the ball was dead! I’ve lived in Aus for 11 years and certainly wasn’t across that rule change! I was also appalled by the Papali shoulder to the jaw... my wife (who has watched her kids play the game) said “how can any parent let their kids play this game if that is allowed”

...and I agree I thought he should have been sent off for that attack and a receive a subsequent and sizeable ban. 

 

Ps I was supporting Canberra during the game but I thought the rabbits got some very poor calls. 

[bobbruce]

9 hours ago, Wollongong said:

This is one of the problems while we don’t have a unified set of interpretations across the game... nrl screw around with the rules to appease the press, and RFL tinker around to try and increase popularity. 

I was screaming at the screen that the ball was dead! I’ve lived in Aus for 11 years and certainly wasn’t across that rule change! I was also appalled by the Papali shoulder to the jaw... my wife (who has watched her kids play the game) said “how can any parent let their kids play this game if that is allowed”

...and I agree I thought he should have been sent off for that attack and a receive a subsequent and sizeable ban. 

 

Ps I was supporting Canberra during the game but I thought the rabbits got some very poor calls. 

It wasn’t allowed as he gave a penalty away. I take it you were furious when Sam B nearly took Crokers head off on the tackle were he hurt his peck/bicep. 

[Old Frightful]

22 hours ago, DavidM said:

one rule I did like was the defender being allowed to drag CNK back in the ingoal after he flung himself down . 

Is that a dyslexic swipe at one of our moderators?

[DavidM]

1 minute ago, Old Frightful said:

Is that a dyslexic swipe at one of our moderators?

Indeed not , I would never incite violence against our good and esteemed companion !

[Wollongong]

13 hours ago, bobbruce said:

It wasn’t allowed as he gave a penalty away. I take it you were furious when Sam B nearly took Crokers head off on the tackle were he hurt his peck/bicep. 

Was a very clumsy challenge which required a penalty... possibly a sin bin. 

 

Sam hurt his peck???  Has he signed for the roosters? 

 

I rate my furiousness by the danger involved.. Burgess was clumsy but was arms length pushing against a weak lever and Crocker would have been unlucky to have been seriously injured... 

Papali has the full force of his body going through the shoulder into Doueihi’s neck and head... seriously dangerous and he was lucky not to be badly injured. 

 

Just my view of course... 

[Bulliac]

On 28/09/2019 at 17:30, DavidM said:

He seems to be straying more n more into the realms of stating the bleeding obvious. We had the cracker of ‘ the ball must go between the posts to count as a goalkick ‘ and the belter ‘ he must retain possession and put it down over the line ‘ then last night ‘ he must get rid of the ball before going into touch ‘ . Priceless comments , worth every penny 

Of course it doesn't HAVE to physically go between the posts, only to go through the posts in the opinion of the referee - and the same applies to tries being scored. Someone once said that "opinions were ten a penny but facts were sacred". Not in RL (or any other sport) they're not!

[CmonTheBorough]

8 hours ago, Bulliac said:

Of course it doesn't HAVE to physically go between the posts, only to go through the posts in the opinion of the referee - and the same applies to tries being scored. Someone once said that "opinions were ten a penny but facts were sacred". Not in RL (or any other sport) they're not!

My post isn't strictly relevant to the topic under discussion but your quote about opinions made me smile because it reminded me of a former boss at work when I was young and fiery.

He would let me rant and rave in his office about whatever work subject was troubling me that day until I had got it all out then he would shrug his shoulders and say:  "Always remember. An opinion is like an a...hole.  Everybody's got one."

A wise man indeed and a gentle put-down!