Sat 27 Jun: NRL: Parramatta Eels v Canberra Raiders KO 10.35am BST (Sky Sports)

[barnyia]

They look tired, maybe the travel is taking its toll 

[THE RED ROOSTER]

Must win game next week for Canberra.

[unapologetic pedant]

18 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I was ok with that decision.  He made a deliberate effort to close the kicker down and so he can't claim the ball played him just because he turned his back on it.

You say "deliberate effort" as though it were something deserving of punishment.

Go at the ball and charge down the kick and it risks back to one, go at the kicker and it risks a late tackle penalty. If now you can`t even move towards the ball without incurring a repeat set if it hits you, just how are defences supposed to apply kick pressure?

Kickers have all the time, in acres of space, to pick their spot, since causing them the slightest inconvenience is too hazardous for their opposition.

All this rewards poor play and penalises good play.

[Dunbar]

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

You say "deliberate effort" as though it were something deserving of punishment.

Go at the ball and charge down the kick and it risks back to one, go at the kicker and it risks a late tackle penalty. If now you can`t even move towards the ball without incurring a repeat set if it hits you, just how are defences supposed to apply kick pressure?

Kickers have all the time, in acres of space, to pick their spot, since causing them the slightest inconvenience is too hazardous for their opposition.

All this rewards poor play and penalises good play.

These are highly objective calls. In other sports, the decision is based on who contacted the ball last irrelevant of intent. While I prefer our law, calls like this one will always divide opinion on whether a player deliberately touched the ball.

I am ok with the ref's interpretation here that closing down a kick constitutes a deliberate attempt to play at the ball. If you think the opposite then that is fine.

[Nearenough]

i have not got the rule to hand but surely the intent to play the ball refers to what a player does AFTER the kick not before?

in this case the ref said "you jumped"  to the player who was hit. if he did jump and it hit his head for example then fair dues it was a deliberate effort.

my point in this case is twofold, firstly he didnt jump so the ref was wrong. secondly if u have turned your back on a ball you can not be delberatley playing at a ball u can not see.

maybe removing the 'intent' from the rule is a good idea. if a ball hits you direct on the full from a kick its play on regardless of where it goes or how u moved?

[Nearenough]

.

[dkw]

9 minutes ago, Nearenough said:

i have not got the rule to hand but surely the intent to play the ball refers to what a player does AFTER the kick not before?

in this case the ref said "you jumped"  to the player who was hit. if he did jump and it hit his head for example then fair dues it was a deliberate effort.

my point in this case is twofold, firstly he didnt jump so the ref was wrong. secondly if u have turned your back on a ball you can not be delberatley playing at a ball u can not see.

maybe removing the 'intent' from the rule is a good idea. if a ball hits you direct on the full from a kick its play on regardless of where it goes or how u moved?

Of course you can Impact on a kick even if you turn your back if you are moving towards the kicker, that's the intent bit. The ref got it right, the defender moved towards the kicker and impacted on the kick, he played at it.

[arcticchris]

51 minutes ago, Nearenough said:

i have not got the rule to hand but surely the intent to play the ball refers to what a player does AFTER the kick not before?

in this case the ref said "you jumped"  to the player who was hit. if he did jump and it hit his head for example then fair dues it was a deliberate effort.

my point in this case is twofold, firstly he didnt jump so the ref was wrong. secondly if u have turned your back on a ball you can not be delberatley playing at a ball u can not see.

maybe removing the 'intent' from the rule is a good idea. if a ball hits you direct on the full from a kick its play on regardless of where it goes or how u moved?

Players are clever enough to be aware of where the ball is heading but turn their head or body to make it look to the casual observer like they don’t know where the ball is and are not playing at it. 
 

Often the player is only turning to shield themselves after the ball has left the kickers foot. In most instances bar being less than 3 metres from the kicker I would class that as played at by the defender.

[barnyia]

They said yesterday that the rule is i m, if you jump you play at the ball, its normal to be so close to the kicker because if he doesn't kick you have to tackle him, then when he goes to kick its natural to turn your back to protect yourself. 

[DoubleD]

2 hours ago, dkw said:

Of course you can Impact on a kick even if you turn your back if you are moving towards the kicker, that's the intent bit. The ref got it right, the defender moved towards the kicker and impacted on the kick, he played at it.

Is it intent though? I thought it was a poor call and opens up a can of worms in situations like that. He’s moving up with the defensive line and turns his back so can’t even see where the kick is going. That is not intent when you cannot see. It rewarded a poor kick. 

If that becomes the rule moving forward, you’ll just have players deliberately kicking the ball into the defensiveless player to get 6 again

[DoubleD]

Best team won and Canberra still have plenty to work on. They look very clunky. Not a lot of go forward either. Papalii is the only stand out prop and he’s not at his best. Too many players appear out of form including Hodgson, whilst CNK and Wighton haven’t had much impact. Scott has been very poor.

 I wonder how much punishment Horsburgh will get for flicking the bird. It was a shame it ended that way for him, I really like him as a player

[dkw]

5 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

Is it intent though? I thought it was a poor call and opens up a can of worms in situations like that. He’s moving up with the defensive line and turns his back so can’t even see where the kick is going. That is not intent when you cannot see. It rewarded a poor kick. 

If that becomes the rule moving forward, you’ll just have players deliberately kicking the ball into the defensiveless player to get 6 again

If your moving towards the kicker then its obvious intent in my opinion,  and it will affect the kicker. 

[DoubleD]

Parramatta are looking very impressive though, although they’ll be sweating on Moses injury. Their spine is excellent, it’s been together a few years now and you can see how well they complement each other. 

Together with some handy outside backs and a mean front row of Campbell-Gillard who’s playing as well as ever and Paulo who looks transformed. I’ve been really impressed with him, i didn’t think he’d cope with the increased aerobic nature of the game but he’s been fantastic 

[DoubleD]

Just now, dkw said:

If your moving towards the kicker then its obvious intent in my opinion,  and it will affect the kicker. 

The defensive line will naturally move forward to engage. That’s not intent to play at a kick

[dkw]

Just now, DoubleD said:

Parramatta are looking very impressive though, although they’ll be sweating on Moses injury. Their spine is excellent, it’s been together a few years now and you can see how well they complement each other. 

Together with some handy outside backs and a mean front row of Campbell-Gillard who’s playing as well as ever and Paulo who looks transformed. I’ve been really impressed with him, i didn’t think he’d cope with the increased aerobic nature of the game but he’s been fantastic 

Moses injury if bad could knock them unfortunately, only having brown to create hindered them a bit. Campbell gillard has been outstanding,  I didn't think he could be that good.

[dkw]

2 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

The defensive line will naturally move forward to engage. That’s not intent to play at a kick

But you agree him moving towards the kicker will have an effect on the kicker, surely? If hes not moving towards him then the kicker has more time. 

[DoubleD]

1 minute ago, dkw said:

But you agree him moving towards the kicker will have an effect on the kicker, surely? If hes not moving towards him then the kicker has more time. 

Yes but that’s not intent on making a play at the kick. 

In effect it’s rewarding a poor kick and as I said, if that becomes the norm then kickers will end up just kicking it into the defender to get a repeat set of 6

[Lowdesert]

44 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

Yes but that’s not intent on making a play at the kick. 

In effect it’s rewarding a poor kick and as I said, if that becomes the norm then kickers will end up just kicking it into the defender to get a repeat set of 6

And I think we will see that too.  

[DavidM]

I just caught up on that game , very enjoyable . Parra deserved to win I’d say , they were the better side for the vast majority . They look the nearest to the Roosters for me although losing Moses is a really big blow . Canberra again we’re a bit unimpressive in the main and would have got out of jail if they’d pulled that off. George Williams is still a bit enigmatic, largely anonymous until the second half then upped his involvement and threat . Needs to be consistently involved and needs to attack the line and be handed more responsibility , it will benefit canberra . He was more threatening than Wighton when he got into it . I’d be interested in passing why Parra were penalised after the Horsburgh incident . No one said why . The tackle was fine then Horsburgh got antzy and grabbed Matterson and got a penalty ?