Finals Week 1
- Thread starter Big Pete
- Start date
- Jan 25, 2014
- 44,576
- 33,850
No it's not side-by-side. When they say side-by-side, they are talking about shoulder to shoulder because that's what teams used to do. They used to get 3-4 players and stand shoulder to shoulder to the side of the play the ball to stop any defender from even making a run towards the kicker. That's what was banned.
As long as a defender is able to get through and doesn't have to run around the players loitering and makes a run for the kicker, it's fair game. Because it's not currently illegal to loiter to the side of the play the ball in an effort to shield your kicker. Once the rule changed, teams adapted and the NRL are yet to update the rule to ban this as well. It's a loophole that's been exploited for years now.
- Jan 25, 2014
- 44,576
- 33,850
Probably, but that's still not illegal. It has to be more than just Victor's presence corralled him into taking that space.
Big Pete
International Captain
- Mar 12, 2008
- 32,225
- 26,005
- Thread starter
- #544
At the end of the day it's a poorly written rule. The rule only states side by side, Annesley having to come out and clarify the interpretation is shoulder to shoulder is poor governance. There is no doubt that Rein was denied a direct path to Walker because of the block and if he had have feigned a collision he would have been able to deny the Roosters. Instead he makes an honest attempt and gets punished.
I still think the better team won, but it highlights an issue that needs to be remedied ASAP.
Annesley's explanation is poor and sadly it's become a real trend for him.
I still think the better team won, but it highlights an issue that needs to be remedied ASAP.
Annesley's explanation is poor and sadly it's become a real trend for him.
Hoof Hearted
QCup Player
- Oct 23, 2016
- 377
- 410
Why can’t the NRL just ban it now.
- Dec 12, 2014
- 6,420
- 7,247
So you could line up 10 players, and as long as they are 5cm apart that's fair game?
Either you or the NRL are being fucking ridiculous.
- Jan 25, 2013
- 25,716
- 30,074
Need as many grey areas as possible for the NRL to be able to control games.
Hoof Hearted
QCup Player
- Oct 23, 2016
- 377
- 410
Ha ha next thing you’ll be telling me Yeo got off his crusher tackle charge even though he has history for it. I mean Goose Gould said he would never try and cheat the taxman. That’s something he leaves up to his accountant instead.
- Sep 6, 2013
- 56,892
- 69,499
It’s a good question, they make up every other rule on the fly, so why not do it with one that actually makes sense.
- Sep 6, 2013
- 56,892
- 69,499
Colour me shocked.
- Jan 25, 2014
- 44,576
- 33,850
Pretty sure 5cm’s wouldn’t be a big enough gap to get around the shoulder to shoulder part of the rule.
As long as they aren't standing shoulder to shoulder, technically yeah you could. You could also do the same for any kick.
But that wouldn't be the smartest thing to do because everyone of those players would be offside from the kick and leave themselves open to being penalized among other things.
- Jan 25, 2014
- 44,576
- 33,850
To be fair, this isn't the first time this rule has been explained.
Is it on the NRL that a lot of people simply don't remember and don't keep up to date with the interpretations of the rules?
It's a rule that needs fixing to get rid of the loopholes, but at the present time those loopholes exist and they have been used many times over the past few years.
Big Pete
International Captain
- Mar 12, 2008
- 32,225
- 26,005
- Thread starter
- #553
It wouldn't have to be explained if the rule was written properly in the first place. When was the last time it was officially explained? It really should have stopped after that Round 9 2016 Panthers vs Raiders fiasco but here we are.
