Bulldogs vs Souths

[Kaz]

Why shouldn't it protect Graham? He was already diving for the ball before Reynolds kicked it. He was already committed to the charge down.

It doesn't matter if he was already commented to the charge down, he still made connect with the kickers legs. (which is illegal)

 

[Twiztid]

Why shouldn't it protect Graham? He was already diving for the ball before Reynolds kicked it. He was already committed to the charge down.

Yes but in the way I read the rule 15. It is to the protect the tackler in the event the kicker is trying to milk a penalty or second guess kicking straight away and the tackler is already committed. You know those shitty kicks that happen when the halfback ***** up on the last, those times.

Graham has taken off but he is not committed to the charge down / tackle (I'll group them together) yet before Adam is dropping the ball, so that is why that Rule 15 shouldn't apply, because he never delays the kick. He frankly couldn't have kicked the ball any faster. This is why the field goal / kicker protection rule has to be used and protect the kicker.

Look at how Clark went for Hodkinson. He almost got there but pulled out to stop making contact.

 

[Porthoz]

Rule 15: If the player in possession of the ball, has delayed kicking the ball until the tackler has commenced to dive, the tackler should not be penalised.

Graham did not attack the legs, he attempted to charge down a kick, and was well and truly committed at the moment Reynols kicks:

As unfortunate as the whole incident was, it is not a penalty!

 

[ningnangnong]

You're entitled to charge down a kick, no doubt, but the fact he dived/slipped changes it for me.

Whether he meant it or not, he ends up attacking the legs and that's a no-no in today's game. Look at the result - Reynolds is out for yonks now. You can go blindly off the rules or whatever, but in my book, it's a penalty because he's endangered the kicker.

 

[gordjw]

It's a pretty rough sport, everyone's in danger all the time, from all sorts of legal activities.

It's not important (IMO) that Reynolds kicked it as fast as he can, it also says that the onus is on the kicker to get the ball away, not the defender to let him. He should have stood further back, or moved faster.

The thing is, I can understand why the ref ruled the way he did, we're looking at slow-mo and stills, he gets one shot live.

Btw, I'd love to have Graham here, he plays with so much heart and power. Outbursts are an unfortunate side effect, but I'd live with it.

 

[Morkel]

It's a pretty rough sport, everyone's in danger all the time, from all sorts of legal activities.

It's not important (IMO) that Reynolds kicked it as fast as he can, it also says that the onus is on the kicker to get the ball away, not the defender to let him. He should have stood further back, or moved faster.

The thing is, I can understand why the ref ruled the way he did, we're looking at slow-mo and stills, he gets one shot live.

Btw, I'd love to have Graham here, he plays with so much heart and power. Outbursts are an unfortunate side effect, but I'd live with it.

It wasn't one live view. Video ref intervened.

 

[Kaz]

Rule 15: If the player in possession of the ball, has delayed kicking the ball until the tackler has commenced to dive, the tackler should not be penalised.

But it's not Rule 15.

It's the one I posted in post 3.

https://broncoshq.com/rugby-league-talk/25505-bulldogs-vs-souths.html#post2666304

10.(a)If a player fouls an opponent who is attempting a drop goal, a penalty kick shall be awarded in front of the goal posts.


And

Dangerous contact on field goal: the rule explained

There was much confusion after lead referee Gerard Sutton handed South Sydney a penalty in front of the sticks when halfback Adam Reynolds' leg was taken out on a James Graham chargedown. Referees boss Tony Archer fronted the media post-game to explain the rule.

"If there is an unsuccessful field goal attempt, and there is an infringement on the kicker, that penalty is awarded 10 metres out from in front of the goal posts," he said.

"That's why they went to that position for the penalty. It's not where the ball bounces, which is just from a general play kick. That was the difference in it."

Whether the penalty should have been awarded or not, Archer was unwilling to say.

"It's really difficult for me to comment because the player has been placed on report for the dangerous contact, and there obviously has to be a process that has to occur in relation to that," he said.

Bulldogs v Rabbitohs: Five key points - NRL.com

 

[Morkel]

But it's not Rule 15.

It's the one I posted in post 3.

https://broncoshq.com/rugby-league-talk/25505-bulldogs-vs-souths.html#post2666304

10.(a)If a player fouls an opponent who is attempting a drop goal, a penalty kick shall be awarded in front of the goal posts.


And

Dangerous contact on field goal: the rule explained

There was much confusion after lead referee Gerard Sutton handed South Sydney a penalty in front of the sticks when halfback Adam Reynolds' leg was taken out on a James Graham chargedown. Referees boss Tony Archer fronted the media post-game to explain the rule.

"If there is an unsuccessful field goal attempt, and there is an infringement on the kicker, that penalty is awarded 10 metres out from in front of the goal posts," he said.

"That's why they went to that position for the penalty. It's not where the ball bounces, which is just from a general play kick. That was the difference in it."

Whether the penalty should have been awarded or not, Archer was unwilling to say.

"It's really difficult for me to comment because the player has been placed on report for the dangerous contact, and there obviously has to be a process that has to occur in relation to that," he said.

Bulldogs v Rabbitohs: Five key points - NRL.com

I keep seeing that explanation by the refs, but haven't seen it in a rulebook. The rule about attacking the legs.

 

[Kaz]

It doesn't have to be attacking the legs. It could be a head high tackle.

The rule says if a player fouls.

Graham had contact with the legs, if he made contact with the head, the same rule applies.

 

[Socnorb]

Geeeee I dunnnnno.. maybe technically speaking it was a penalty, but given the circumstances of the game, the fact that Graham wasn't even looking at Reynolds when the contact was made, the fact he was going purely for the ball and then signalled for the trainer immediately after realising he made contact..

Extremely unlucky on the Bulldogs behalf, and I completely understand their reaction, it was a bit over the top, but in all honesty most captains would've reacted the same way (Maybe slightly less in the referees face)

Make no mistake Graham is a walking dog shot

 

[broncos4life]

I can't be arsed going through the various rule-books and guidelines.

Archer was quized on it on RLW TV. He said that the contact cannot be considered late, high or dangerous. Now, it's entirely up to your view of dangerous contact but to me, a tackle that causes a player to suffer a lateral ligament tear in his knee is most certainly dangerous.

Sorry Pete but I have to disagree with you there. If we are going to start ruling on dangerous contact based on whether an injury or not is suffered then we might as well give it away now.

Players do injuries in all sorts of tackles, so are they all dangerous contact?

 

[broncos4life]

It doesn't have to be attacking the legs. It could be a head high tackle.

The rule says if a player fouls.

Graham had contact with the legs, if he made contact with the head, the same rule applies.

But he wasn't attacking the legs. He jumped before the ball was kicked. If he jumped at his legs after the ball was kicked then yes that is attacking the legs.

 

[Twiztid]

Rule 15: If the player in possession of the ball, has delayed kicking the ball until the tackler has commenced to dive, the tackler should not be penalised.

Graham did not attack the legs, he attempted to charge down a kick, and was well and truly committed at the moment Reynols kicks:

As unfortunate as the whole incident was, it is not a penalty!

It is a drop kick, so you have to take it from when the action is started (the last moment the ball is in his hands) not when the ball is kicked. He can't magically stop the kick when he has dropped it to bounce. That is why I read the rule in regards to kickers trying to milk a penalty when going for general kicks. Adam's hands are well and truly up and he is unprotected.

Yes, Graham has gone for the charge down and no-one is saying he can't in the situation. He just needs to perform the action in such a way that does not put the kicker in danger. He unfortunately dived for it and resulted him coming through and collecting Adam's legs dangerously and it is the correct call of a penalty from in front. I thought it was from where the ball landed and that raised a lot of confusion with everyone as it rarely happens any more.

 

[ivanhungryjak]

I just hate the inconsistency all the time. If Reynolds bounces straight back up, it's probably play on and no-ones the wiser.

Which leads me to another pet hate. Staying down to get a penalty (I don't mean Reynolds here, obviously). Greg Bird is exhibit A.

 

[Kaz]

But he wasn't attacking the legs. He jumped before the ball was kicked. If he jumped at his legs after the ball was kicked then yes that is attacking the legs.

It doesn't matter that he wasn't attacking the legs. He still made contact.

 

[broncos4life]

It doesn't matter that he wasn't attacking the legs. He still made contact.

Well I think it's a good thing the NRL has the rights to TRL because that's what we will be watching soon... Providing that's not too much contact

 

[Morkel]

It doesn't have to be attacking the legs. It could be a head high tackle.

The rule says if a player fouls.

Graham had contact with the legs, if he made contact with the head, the same rule applies.

But you can't have both. A dangerous or head high tackle is a penalty regardless. Attacking the feet is only applicable to a kick. If the dive started before the kick, then anything related to kicking, ie, attacking the legs, is not applicable.

I'm going to bet the NRL are going to "clarify" the rule, retrospectively adjust any wording in the rules, but right now it's not attacking the kickers legs if the dive started before the kick.

 

[Cult]

What the ****. This isn't an argument. You can not hit the kickers legs, intentional or not. Likewise, you can't try punch the ball out and accidentally punch someone in the face. You are wrong if you think it wasn't a penalty. It doesn't matter if he was attempting a charge down, a tackle or a fucking backflip. What is so hard to understand here?