"Magic" Round 9 discussion

[Dash]

Why is the rule different for the dead ball line and the sideline?

 

[Fozz]

Don a little too overconfident with that call.

 

[Super Freak]

Feel sorry for Arthurs.

Denied a second time. This bloke deserves a try.

 

[Footy Fanatic]

Disagree. Great vision, just a lack of effort from his wingers to drop back.

He should have just taken the tackle.

 

[Footy Fanatic]

Nice try.

 

[Aldo]

All class from Taylor there

 

[Broncos Maestro]

Anybody got crowd numbers?

 

[tommy]

How did they get the feed?

Can anyone explain why Sharks got the feed in that situation?

 

[Morkel]

Can anyone explain why Sharks got the feed in that situation?

I think it's because he touched the ball when his foot was already out. Meaning that the last in-play touch was from the Titans, so out off them, Sharks ball.

Edit: Same as when you catch a kick-off with one foot over the dead ball line. Forces it dead. The only difference in the in-goal is when the ball is bouncing. If it has touched the grass already, touching it while out doesn't force it dead, the ball actually has to touch the grass outside the field for it to be dead.

 

[tommy]

I think it's because he touched the ball when his foot was already out. Meaning that the last in-play touch was from the Titans, so out off them, Sharks ball.

If that's the rule(is it?) then why wouldn't he just do it on purpose?

 

[Dash]

I think it's because he touched the ball when his foot was already out. Meaning that the last in-play touch was from the Titans, so out off them, Sharks ball.

Edit: Same as when you catch a kick-off with one foot over the dead ball line. Forces it dead. The only difference in the in-goal is when the ball is bouncing. If it has touched the grass already, touching it while out doesn't force it dead, the ball actually has to touch the grass outside the field for it to be dead.

That rule only applies for out on the full. The referees stuffed up big time. Otherwise you would see every winger doing it every kick.

 

[Morkel]

If that's the rule(is it?) then why wouldn't he just do it on purpose?

Because players often forget the rules in the heat of the moment. Eg, Kahu with dropouts.

 

[Unbreakable]

If that's the rule(is it?) then why wouldn't he just do it on purpose?

It's a rule that should be utilised every week, no idea why coaches aren't coaching it. Especially in situations like that one and when the ball is nearly dead in the in-goal. As long as the ball isn't stationary you can do it.

 

[Super Freak]

If that's the rule(is it?) then why wouldn't he just do it on purpose?

It's not a common rule.

The last time I remember seeing it was Broncos vs Warriors in 2015. Prior to that, Broncos vs Dragons in Round 4 2009 when Winterstein had his foot out when gathering a Soward kick.

 

[Galah]

I think it's because he touched the ball when his foot was already out. Meaning that the last in-play touch was from the Titans, so out off them, Sharks ball.

Edit: Same as when you catch a kick-off with one foot over the dead ball line. Forces it dead. The only difference in the in-goal is when the ball is bouncing. If it has touched the grass already, touching it while out doesn't force it dead, the ball actually has to touch the grass outside the field for it to be dead.

I thought that was only when on the full for the sideline?

 

[ningnangnong]

I'm only half paying attention, but this has been a pretty good game considering the teams involved.

 

[Aldo]

Tell me why when someone does a Shepherd and they give themselves up (like Dugan just did) , why are they just allowed to play the ball as though nothing has happened? Why isn't it a penalty?

 

[Morkel]

I thought that was only when on the full for the sideline?

Maybe. The more I think I know, the less I do about NRL rules.