Bulldogs vs Souths

[Foordy]

And that there is precisely what I can't find in any rulebook, anywhere. It may be what the refs rule on, it may be their interpretation, but I can't find it in the rules. If someone can, and it shows that the "diving before kicking" rule is negated, then I'll happily stand corrected.

It may not 'officially' be in the rule book, it may just be the way the referee's interpret dangerous contact (which i'm sure would be in the rule book) to be.

it is also the way they have been ruling for 2 years, since Isaac Luke invented his cannon ball tackle and they were worried someone could get seriously injured.

 

[BroncosAlways]

Wait a minute, is Graham seriously going to be suspended ??
It was a penalty for sure but the clear lack of intent means it should've just stayed a penalty. If he gets suspended that's a complete joke.

 

[Foordy]

Wait a minute, is Graham seriously going to be suspended ??
It was a penalty for sure but the clear lack of intent means it should've just stayed a penalty. If he gets suspended that's a complete joke.

We'll have to wait and see the charge sheet ... but even if he isn't charged for the attempted charge down, i think there is a good chance they'll want to make an example out of him for the way he carried on with the refs

 

[Foordy]

on another note how many times during the PC did hasler say "I can't comment on that" :laugh:

 

[Kaz]

I beat you by about 18 hours.

So you had to bring up the fact that I am slow. :redface: :wink:

 

[BroncosAlways]

on another note how many times during the PC did hasler say "I can't comment on that" :laugh:

And the words "Um" and "Err"

No joke, it literally went over 50 times I believe.

 

[Huge]

so i can't spell for shit ... sue me :thefinger:

But but but, don't these new fangled computery things have an auto correct ha ha....thing is, I'll have my way and you will forevermore spell dissent correctly! And I'll have no descent from you over the matter !!!

 

[Huge]

It may not 'officially' be in the rule book, it may just be the way the referee's interpret dangerous contact (which i'm sure would be in the rule book) to be.

it is also the way they have been ruling for 2 years, since Isaac Luke invented his cannon ball tackle and they were worried someone could get seriously injured.

Trust me Foordy, it wasn't Lukes invention, there was this guy....

 

[Porthoz]

Come on, I hate it too, but the amount of people that spell his instead of he's and vice versa, the amount of should of/would of instead of should have/would have, etc...

We would be here all night correcting spelling.

 

[Kaz]

Lukes invention

Shouldn't that be Luke's invention.

 

[Mr Fourex]

It may not 'officially' be in the rule book, it may just be the way the referee's interpret dangerous contact (which i'm sure would be in the rule book) to be.

it is also the way they have been ruling for 2 years, since Isaac Luke invented his cannon ball tackle and they were worried someone could get seriously injured.

and the way an "accidental" high shot has been ruled for eons. Doesn't matter that the player was falling or if you didn't mean to hit him high. You made contact with the head. Penalty.

You make contact with the kickers legs, accidental or not..... penalty.

 

[Huge]

Shouldn't that be Luke's invention.

Yes indeedy ! Yore write. It shoulda bin spelt beta.har har. Of corse, I wuz torkin about how ya spel sumthin,knot how ya pungchurate it,hay. I mist anne apostrafee anne you gott on it write kwik sumart.

You were dead right, I made a mistake after a gentle chiding of Foordy. Main reason I did though was because it came right after I had posted about Fox Sports reporting that the Doggies were facing 'descent' charges. The shame is ,these people are getting paid to write, presumably needed a decent education and had to meet high standards to work in the media. I thought I tread lightly but I guess I'll have to do better. I got it wrong. Damm you Kaz, you're good ha ha

 

[Twiztid]

And that there is precisely what I can't find in any rulebook, anywhere. It may be what the refs rule on, it may be their interpretation, but I can't find it in the rules. If someone can, and it shows that the "diving before kicking" rule is negated, then I'll happily stand corrected.

This is why the NRL need to fix up their rule book. But from the Referree's Guidelines - http://www.nrl.com/portals/nrl/RadEditor/Documents/2014NRLLawsandInterpretation.pdf I have looked through NRL Rulebook 2015 but some information does mirror again. (http://www.nrl.com/portals/nrl/RadEditor/Documents/ARL_Rules_book_2015_Media.pdf)

This is the closest thing I can find. It doesn't cover the topic of charge down's gone wrong. It is generally about a tackle.

PLAYER MISCONDUCT
A player is guilty of misconduct if he:
5. Unnecessarily contacts a player not in possession or a kicker (see Tackle and Play the ball)
6. When a defender forcefully spears at the legs of a player in possession exposing him to unnecessary
risk of injury

(6 is more so to do in regards to the cannon ball tackles, but it is the first sign of protecting the legs).

TACKLE AND PLAY THE BALL
A player in possession is tackled:

Tackling a Kicker
When affecting a tackle on a kicker, the defender must make a genuine attempt to tackle which is not:
1. Late
2. High or
3. Dangerous

This is from the Rule Book.

Obstruction after kick (j) A common form of obstruction occurs when a player, after
kicking the ball forward, is tackled or impeded by an
opponent. However, a tackler cannot be expected to delay
making a tackle because the player in possession might
decide to kick the ball. The onus is on the kicker to get his
kick in before his opponent commits himself to the tackle.

So to me reading that. If Graham went to put a hit on Reynold's he has every right to do so, which I said earlier. However, due to the fact, he was going for the ball and not the man, he must not make contact with the player. As there is no real wording in regards to the actions from a charge down they must treat charge down and tackle as 2 different terms.

 

[Twiztid]

I think this gif shows how far into the kick Adam was before Graham was committed. So that rule 15 has to be the bottom one of the 2. As the ball has well and truly left Adam's hands.

 

[gordjw]

Amazing that we all read the exact same passages and came away with completely opposite opinions.

It says the onus is on the kicker to get the kick away. Well, "away" is when you actually kick it, not as soon as you drop it.

And it still doesn't say that it's illegal to touch the legs of a kicker at all. There must be other handbooks, guides, dark incantation scrolls out there.

 

[gordjw]

In terms of time off, I think he'll get 4 weeks for the dissent, 0 for the actual incident.
Klemmer will get 2-3.

 

[Twiztid]

Amazing that we all read the exact same passages and came away with completely opposite opinions.

It says the onus is on the kicker to get the kick away. Well, "away" is when you actually kick it, not as soon as you drop it.

And it still doesn't say that it's illegal to touch the legs of a kicker at all. There must be other handbooks, guides, dark incantation scrolls out there.

The diagram does show that the player is holding the ball. The 2nd one shows the ball is at his feet. Once the player drops the ball and more so for a field goal, he can't pull out of it.

Funny that when you read the NZ Rugby League Rulebook it is right there. http://www.nzrl.co.nz/media/67670/nzrl rule book march 30 2012.pdf I also found the ruling in some SA rugby league rulebook. Why it isn't in the NRL rulebook makes no sense.

3.5 Dangerous Tackles
3.5.1 “Mid Air tackles”. Any player from the non-kicking team who leaps into the air to
retrieve a kick must not be tackled until he/she has returned to the ground. It is considered
misconduct for players to dive at the legs of a kicker after the ball has been kicked.

 

[Twiztid]

I found it. Right there in Black and White. NRL Judiciary Guidelines. Why the hell it isn't worded into the rulebook like this is beyond me, if it was there like that, no-one would be complaining.

https://www.nswrl.com.au/content/da...re and Ed/NRLJudiciaryCodeofProcedure2014.pdf

Contact With A Kicker Charged as Dangerous Contact
Directions along the following lines may be given:

Kicking the ball in the course of play is a legitimate part of the game.
It is acceptable fairly to charge down the kick before or during the making of the
kick so as to frustrate it and to prevent the ball passing cleanly away; however it
is conduct in breach of the Rules where, in the course of a charge-down of a kick
in the course of play, the charging player makes Dangerous Contact with the
kicking player.

One possible indicator of such an offence is that the contact is improbably late
and/or not directed at the football - that is, where it is clear that the charging
player was never likely actually to stop the ball being kicked away, and just
aimed to make contact with the kicker whilst he is off balance and vulnerable.

Another possible indicator of such an offence is that in attempting to charge a
kick down a defender throws himself in front of the kicker or at the kicker’s leg or
legs making it likely a collision with the defender will be unavoidable.

Another possible indicator of such an offence is that the charging player
launches himself so that he loses contact with the ground in the course of the
charge.

And there may be other indicators.

The Panel should bear in mind, where deciding on such charges, the need to
protect kickers against being targeted.

This offence may be committed intentionally, recklessly or carelessly.

But then again some people will probably read it differently to me.