Bulldogs vs Souths

[Unbreakable]

Referee that slipped on the way in to the tunnel has a broken shoulder.

 

[gordjw]

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?

According to what rule Cult? Where's the one that says no contact with the legs? Yes, we've all heard commentators go on about it for years, but what's the actual rule?

 

[john1420]

Are you seriously trying to argue that you CAN take out a kicker in the legs?

I have no intention of trawling through a rule book looking for it, but I've seen penalty after penalty blown for it over the last few years, and nobody has said they shouldn't have been blown

And I remember the big discussion when the "new rule" or "interpretation" came in - it was to protect the kickers. So without going to the rule book, I'm happy to say taking out a kickers legs is a penalty

 

[broncos4life]

Are you seriously trying to argue that you CAN take out a kicker in the legs?

I have no intention of trawling through a rule book looking for it, but I've seen penalty after penalty blown for it over the last few years, and nobody has said they shouldn't have been blown

If there is intention.

 

[john1420]

If there is intention.

Intent doesn't matter

If you hit someone in the head, it's a high shot

The refs don't stand around trying to figure out if you meant to hit him in the head

To me, it was an absolutely clear penalty

 

[Kaz]

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

Read the rule. I have made it easy for you.

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.


Reynolds was trying to kick a field goal. (Yes it was the worst attempt ever.) You hear the ref mention the field goal attempt.

He was fouled by Graham, whether it was intentional or not, is not the point. Nor is, he was already committed to the tackle etc.

 

[john1420]

I can't even see the controversy

Clear cut to me, bad luck Dogs, but right call

And Graham needs to be sanctioned

 

[gordjw]

Since nobody could be bothered, I had another look.

The only way this can be a penalty, is if the ref decided that Graham "forcefully spear[ed] at the legs of a player in possession exposing him to unnecessary risk of injury". Which I suppose he did, but that has nothing to do specifically with kickers, I'm guessing that's the same rule they use for cannonballs.

I don't know where that leaves the other part of the rules which says you can continue to tackle the kicker if you're committed.

So I guess I've changed my mind, but I do wonder what would have happened if Reynolds wasn't injured, or if Graham had tackled him around the body.

 

[Mr Fourex]

Read the rule. I have made it easy for you.

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.


Reynolds was trying to kick a field goal. (Yes it was the worst attempt ever.) You hear the ref mention the field goal attempt.

He was fouled by Graham, whether it was intentional or not, is not the point. Nor is, he was already committed to the tackle etc.

^^THIS.

It's pretty simple to understand. There's no outrage or injustice against the Dogs. It's the rules of the game.

Certainly no reason to riot against the referees. Canterbury shouldn't be allowed to have a fan base ....time after time again, Bulldog fans are guilty of doing the most repulsive things.

 

[Mr Fourex]

I do wonder what would have happened if Reynolds wasn't injured, or if Graham had tackled him around the body.

Well....probably no penalty, because it wouldn't have been an illegal play.

 

[broncos4life]

Well....probably no penalty, because it wouldn't have been an illegal play.

So it's only an illegal play because Reynolds was injured?

 

[Mr Fourex]

So it's only an illegal play because Reynolds was injured?

no....more to do with the comment of Graham tackling him around the body, instead of diving for Reynolds legs.

 

[broncos4life]

no....more to do with the comment of Graham tackling him around the body, instead of diving for Reynolds legs.

Fair call, sorry mate

 

[Porthoz]

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

Uhh, 10 does not apply, as the player didn't commit a foul according to 15, which is what determines whether it's a penalty or not in the first place!

Archer all but admitted that with his non-committal comment about whether the penalty should've been given.

 

[Porthoz]

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.

That's your interpretation, which I don't agree with.

The rule clearly states "kicking", not "preparing the kick" or "when the ball leaves the player's hands".

It is the kicker's responsibility to get the ball away on time, or be subject to a defender's impact. The attacking the legs rule, is to protect players who have their legs deliberately taken out, especially when they're still in the air.

None of that applies here, and the serious injury to Reynolds shouldn't have any impact on the outcome.

 

[broncos4life]

That's your interpretation, which I don't agree with.

The rule clearly states "kicking", not "preparing the kick" or "when the ball leaves the player's hands".

It is the kicker's responsibility to get the ball away on time, or be subject to a defender's impact. The attacking the legs rule, is to protect players who have their legs deliberately taken out, especially when they're still in the air.

None of that applies here, and the serious injury to Reynolds shouldn't have any impact on the outcome.

Perfectly said

 

[Morkel]

Otherwise, what is the "diving before kicking" differentiating? High tackle? Penalty regardless. Late? Same. Dangerous? Same again. So what's it there for? So that a kicker can't wait for a player to attempt a chargedown or dive, and then deliberately milk a penalty. I don't think Reynolds tried to milk it, but it's his responsibility to get the kick away before Graham dived. Once Graham was in the air he couldn't change his path, Reynolds needed to pull out or risk getting hit, that was his decision and he'll sit on thesidelines as a consequence.

 

[Kaz]

Uhh, 10 does not apply, as the player didn't commit a foul according to 15, which is what determines whether it's a penalty or not in the first place!

Archer all but admitted that with his non-committal comment about whether the penalty should've been given.

Forget Rule 15 as it doesn't apply.

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