NRL 2026 Round 14 Discussion
- Thread starter Big Pete
- Start date
- Jul 28, 2016
- 35,495
- 51,926
I'm assuming they only come out if the "interference" has caused an error... because if the guy catches it clean then is he really being interfered with.
I would say he is, but if I was arguing the case I'd be using that exact claim.
A penalty is usually there for foul play though... and an intent to interfere with their vision on the ball is still foul play
- Jul 28, 2016
- 35,495
- 51,926
I don't know if the rule is specifically for 3rd man in, but if it is then it shouldn't be.
I thought the rule was more about coming in 'late' and contacting below the knee... which can very much still happen in a 2 man tackle.
3rd man in is usually coming in late because the guy is stationary or near stationary and the cannonball comes in to get the guy to the ground.
- Jul 28, 2016
- 35,495
- 51,926
Siegwalt has been getting slaughtered defending at centre this game.
Latrell to be rushed back in now that it's failed... although Wayne has said he's not available for origin so he theoretically he shouldn't be available vs broncos in Rd 15.
Let's see how NSWRL let it play out.
Big Pete
International Captain
- Mar 12, 2008
- 33,887
- 29,623
- Thread starter
- #49
No I mean one of the elements of a cannonball is that there has to be three men in the tackle. I believe another is what you alluded to is that the tackle player has to be stationary and on the verge of being called held.
Neither of which was the case.
It's why Cobbo got away with essentially the same action on Anderson.
- Jul 28, 2016
- 35,495
- 51,926
If the rule is specifically needing 3 in the tackle then it's stupid.
I could easily see a situation where a 2nd man coming in on a guy near stationary could cause significant damage as a cannon ball.
The tackle from Cobbo was an accident, but if the rule was worded more around "dangerous contact" it would serve better as a catch all.
Seems like one of those things where a cannon ball that takes out an ACL gets successfully challenged by the storm because there were only 2 in the tackle.
Big Pete
International Captain
- Mar 12, 2008
- 33,887
- 29,623
- Thread starter
- #51
Thankfully the NRL are onto it.
What are the key elements and indicators of each offense?
There are currently eight different type of offences that can be charged under the NRL Judiciary Code. Each offence has particular elements and indicators which are detailed as part of the NRL Judiciary Code and what actually constitutes an offence.
www.nrl.com
I'm just so used to hearing 'third man into the tackle' that I thought it was the rule. Nothing about the player being stationary either.
Honestly I'd give Gee the benefit of the doubt there.
- Jul 28, 2016
- 35,495
- 51,926
I would say he saw Paseka fall in a heap, thought he was injured and went straight to penalty... bunker then has to review because of foul play and they can send to the bin to activate a 5th sub.Thankfully the NRL are onto it.
What are the key elements and indicators of each offense?
There are currently eight different type of offences that can be charged under the NRL Judiciary Code. Each offence has particular elements and indicators which are detailed as part of the NRL Judiciary Code and what actually constitutes an offence.
I'm just so used to hearing 'third man into the tackle' that I thought it was the rule. Nothing about the player being stationary either.
Honestly I'd give Gee the benefit of the doubt there.
Realistically if Paseka is injured he aint playing it, Gee can then call time off and bunker reviews for the same thing anyway.
He jumped the gun because of optics and got it wrong.
Paseka was never stationary and always just looked a legs tackle from Smith
