Kicking the ball dead...

[gUt]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...n-spirit-of-game/story-e6frexnr-1225840376743

...is apparently not in the spirit of the game. I saw Gould banging on about this on the weekend but amazingly he is not alone in his reactionary bullsh*t. What a complete waste of oxygen this "issue" is. Kicking the ball dead is 100% legitimate... when the Gold Coast did it to Melbourne last year everyone sat back and applauded this fine tactic, but now that it happens to a Sydney club... worse still, to Jarryd Hayne, it's time to change the rules.

Fortunately fans can see through this rubbish and are also coming to the realisation that Hayne (thru no fault of his own) is massively overhyped, almost as much as Mythal Pearce.

Not sure where the following comes from but I got it in an email, it's pretty spot on:

In the fallout from Friday night’s NRL season opener, some of rugby league’s most vocal critics have slammed the St. George-Illawarra Dragons for having the audacity to tackle Jarryd Hayne, Parramatta fullback and direct descendant of popular theological figure Jesus Christ.

Hayne, 2009’s Dally M Medal winner and new golden child of the sport, as well as league journalists, were found to be appalled when several players from the Dragons wrapped their arms around his chest — sometimes his waist or his legs — in an attempt to pull him to the ground and secure the ball, whereupon the play was completed in a move commonly known as a “tackle”. Such a play forced him to relinquish the ball without scoring a try or curing it of blindness. Though such an act was well within the rules of the game, it has been deemed to be a “dog act” by several notable critics, and as such, the rule is under review.

“Oh, it’s a shocker,” says prominent league writer Peter Katzitsos. “The whole point of having Jarryd Hayne in the league is having him score tries at every given opportunity, completely untouched, so that we can wax lyrical the next day about how he may well have legitimately deistic qualities.
“Who wants to watch a game of league that we can’t wet ourselves over? Not me, I tell you what.”

In response to what could well be a series of passive-aggressive editorials in the sports section of pointless tabloids, the NRL has undertaken a typical kneejerk bandaid scheme to try and amend the rule.
The rule, an amendment to the recent Jarryd Hayne Rule, called the Just Let Jarryd Hayne Do Whatever He Wants Rule, will allow any Parramatta fullbacks named Jarryd Hayne to be able to do absolutely anything they please while on-field. As such, examples of previously prohibited behaviour that Jarryd Hayne will be able to partake in include eye gouging, groin kicking, passing forward at will, blowing penalties for his own side, expelling supporters he deems unattractive from the ground, and even running up to the scoreboard operators to change the score to suit his liking.

“We felt like Jarryd Hayne just wasn’t being given the freedom to effectively become the only player of any significance in the league,” said NRL rulemaker Lawrence Hutz. “With this new rule we’re confident that people will forget every other player in the league.

“With any luck they’ll stop caring about the football, too, so then we can dissolve the clubs and just show Jarryd Hayne standing in a white room for 80 minutes every Friday and Sunday while Ray Warren and Phil Gould rub themselves in the commentary booth.”

The rule is expected to be green-lighted by this weekend’s games, which will allow Jarryd Hayne to burn holes through Manly second rower Anthony Watmough with laser beams shot from his eyes, and offer decisive proof of fullback Brett Stewart’s guilt in his sexual assault case during the half time break.
Hayne himself has declined to comment on Friday’s game, instead electing to fly to the moon using sheer force of will while performing delicate neurosurgery on a deaf orphan.

 

[Meat77]

Best post ever!!!

 

[pennywisealfie]

what a fucking wank. headbutting is not in the spirit of the game, spitting is not in the spirit of the game, kicking the ball dead is a tactic.

 

[Fozz]

Leave the deaf orphan alone, Jarryd. If he can't hear then he doesn't have to put up with Gould's dribble.

 

[Coxy]

This is beyond stupid. Seriously. How about teams that deliberately kick for touch? Is that against the spirit of the game? They've been doing that for 100 years!

I love Roach's rationale that "people come to see attacking football"...maybe so, but teams come to win. And to win you have to play to your own team's strengths and try and nullify your opposition's strengths.

 

[Jazza]

The underarm bowl was a "tactic" too. I hate Hayne as much as the next person, but I think it's to the detriment of the game having teams play negative football just to negate him. I wouldn't outlaw kicking it dead or anything that extreme, but make it more risky by saying that if the ball goes dead on the full, the changeover takes place from where the kick was taken (or the 20m as normal if kick was within the 20m). A bit like when kicking for touch. Teams could still employ the tactic by grubbering etc. but it will take a more skillful kick to make it come off.

 

[Meat77]

I don't remember any national outcry when the Eels kept kicking the ball into touch in the semi-final of 1998 against the Broncos...in fact Phil Gould described it as astute coaching by Brian Smith if I recall correctly

 

[Coxy]

I tend to agree if balls are kicked dead on the full then it should be a changeover at the point of the kick, or 20m line, depending which gives the greatest advantage to the non-kicking team.

I thought the kick from Soward when he was 40 metres out and it went 15m dead on the full was a bit dumb.

But I have no problem with kicking it over the fullback's head and rolling dead. No problem with it at all.

 

[Coxy]

Oh, and Parramatta fans have short memories. Think back to the Brian Smith days in the late 90s when Smith got his kickers to find touch on every kick to stop Lockyer and Sailor carving them up on the kick return.

Or the way he exploited the then rule that if you have one foot over the dead ball line when you touch the rolling ball that it's a 20 metre restart.

Get over it people.

 

[gUt]

The thing is most Parra fans I talk to agree this is a beat-up.

 

[Coxy]

Admittedly it's mostly Steve "smacked one too many times in the head" Roach's opinion.

 

[Meat77]

Admittedly it's mostly Steve "smacked one too many times in the head" Roach's opinion.

Who has also spent WAY too much time in close quarters with Ray Hadley over the years for his own good

 

[Coxy]

Please don't say anything about Ray Hadley. He is likely to sue the forum if you imply anything other than he is a great man.

All hail Ray! You are a god amongst swine.

 

[Browny]

I doubt they'll change this rule as they cant/wont do anything about corner posts

 

[gUt]

The only reasonable allowance I can think of is if the ball is kicked dead on the full a tap should be taken from where the kick happened, or the 20m line, whatever is further up-field. This brings it into line with kicking for touch.

 

[Coxy]

The only reasonable allowance I can think of is if the ball is kicked dead on the full a tap should be taken from where the kick happened, or the 20m line, whatever is further up-field. This brings it into line with kicking for touch.

Yep. Although chatting to a ref mate of mine he thinks that overcomplicates it a bit. He reckons to keep it simple, if it's dead/touch in goal on the full, 30m restart. If it's caught, or bounces dead, 20m restart.

In reality that's probably fair. Most kicks that go dead on the full will be from 30m out or closer.

 

[OXY-351]

Wow, a whole 4 times

 

[Je$ter]

The underarm bowl was a "tactic" too. I hate Hayne as much as the next person, but I think it's to the detriment of the game having teams play negative football just to negate him. I wouldn't outlaw kicking it dead or anything that extreme, but make it more risky by saying that if the ball goes dead on the full, the changeover takes place from where the kick was taken (or the 20m as normal if kick was within the 20m). A bit like when kicking for touch. Teams could still employ the tactic by grubbering etc. but it will take a more skillful kick to make it come off.

How is it in the detriment of the game? Please!

It's smart football, teams come to win and if that means not letting Jarryd Hayne run the ball back then so be it.

Also, that e-mail about Hayne is hilarious and I want a copy to send to everyone I know!