Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
weloveyouwakefield2

Rule clarification

Recommended Posts

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? 


f3gms4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Edited by DavidM
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 5

Twitter: @TrylineBlog 
Latest Blog: #SocialMediaReacts - World Club Challenge Special - https://thetryline.blogspot.com/2020/02/socialmediareacts-world-club-challenge.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Edited by DavidM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 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

If a player throws himself to the ground when not being held by an opponent shouldn't a penalty be given for a voluntary tackle ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RL does what Sky says said:

If a player throws himself to the ground when not being held by an opponent shouldn't a penalty be given for a voluntary tackle ?

Well , once upon a time . Defenders should just stand there and force their hand , but refs just shout play on over n over . Yes they should be penalised more . Another one in my file of defenders can do no right but attackers can do hardly no  wrong in the officials mindset regarding penalties ... 

Edited by DavidM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, RL does what Sky says said:

If a player throws himself to the ground when not being held by an opponent shouldn't a penalty be given for a voluntary tackle ?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 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.

Exactly ... just as Russell Smith failed to do in the Grand Final a few years ago when Chris Joynt dropped to the ground in the final second without having been tackled .... and Stuart Cummings still said he was right with his decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RL does what Sky says said:

Exactly ... just as Russell Smith failed to do in the Grand Final a few years ago when Chris Joynt dropped to the ground in the final second without having been tackled .... and Stuart Cummings still said he was right with his decision.

There is an argument (not mine) that says the player has only committed a voluntary tackle if they throw themselves to the ground and then subsequently play the ball without being touched. This is the reason why some defenders hold off from a player who has 'found the ground' to force him to regain his feet.

My personal interpretation based on the way the law is worded is a player can be penalised for the action of going to ground without an opposing player tackling him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

There is an argument (not mine) that says the player has only committed a voluntary tackle if they throw themselves to the ground and then subsequently play the ball without being touched. This is the reason why some defenders hold off from a player who has 'found the ground' to force him to regain his feet.

My personal interpretation based on the way the law is worded is a player can be penalised for the action of going to ground without an opposing player tackling him.

I agree with your view. The "tackle" and the "play the ball" are two separate items and the penalty should be given for "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." (ie It doesn't say anything about playing the ball).

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

  • Haha 1

         SL Steve Prescott Man of Steel 2016 - Danny Houghton  SL Top Gun 2016/2017 - Marc Sneyd (83%/89% goal success)

         SL Hit Man 2016/2017 - Danny Houghton (1,289/1,123 tackles)  SL Club of the Year 2016 - Hull FC

         SL Coach of the Year 2016 - Lee Radford   RL Challenge Cup Winners 2016/2017 - Hull FC

 

                                                                      All in all, not a bad couple of years, I suppose...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!


No team is an island.........................................

http://www.flickr.com/photos/31337109@N03/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

 

Edited by CmonTheBorough
Senility

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...