NRL Rules Discussion

[Anonymous person]

Slo-Mo showed very clear seperation. Foran hit the ball rather than raked it, no way that was a try however Matai was well offside and it should have been aa Storm penalty.

Yeh there was separation, but not at the time of grounding. Slaters forearm was clearly touching it before and as it hit the ground. He essentially regathering it without getting control. No control whatsoever, but our ridiculous rules don't care about that. An accidental rake is still a rake too by the letter of the law, so hit or strip it's play on.

 

[The Brizz]

Re: Finals Week 3 Discussion

It was hit out so it wasn't intentional. I am not going to get in a rules argument with you but I am not convinced there was no seperation at "grounding" regardless as you say the rules are deadset retarded if by your interpretation of them that is a try.

 

[OXY-351]

Re: Finals Week 3 Discussion

Yeh there was separation, but not at the time of grounding. Slaters forearm was clearly touching it before and as it hit the ground. He essentially regathering it without getting control. No control whatsoever, but our ridiculous rules don't care about that.

Given you have the rule book by your side, what does it actually say on the matter? If it's worded to allow a try in that situation, then I seriously think they need to look at re-wording the whole thing.

 

[Anonymous person]

Re: Finals Week 3 Discussion

Given you have the rule book by your side, what does it actually say on the matter? If it's worded to allow a try in that situation, then I seriously think they need to look at re-wording the whole thing.

Despite you saying that sarcastically ill give you the answer as I do have it handy:

"If separation occurs during grounding of the ball for a try possession can be regained by the hand or arm regaining contact with the ball prior to it hitting the ground."

From referee guidelines 2011 - http://www.sportingpulse.com/get_file.cgi?id=1015498

Good enough for you oxy?

 

[OXY-351]

Re: Finals Week 3 Discussion

Good enough for you oxy?

That is a terrible rule. Needs to be changed in the off season. Is a knock-on every day of the week imo.

 

[Anonymous person]

Re: Finals Week 3 Discussion

That is a terrible rule. Needs to be changed in the off season. Is a knock-on every day of the week imo.

Won't get any argument from me on that. No control with hands should be no try. But as the rules read, it was a 100% legitimate try. Was a good example of the commentators being completely wrong about the rules too, like we were talking about in the week 2 topic. Will be interesting to see what harrigan says about it.

A bit off topic but while perusing the guidelines I found one that I was looking for but couldnt find after Morris' try in origin 3 : "If in the process of scoring a try the ball comes in contact with a defender the Video Referee must consider whether the ball has only stayed in the hand because of the contact. If he concludes it did it will be a knock on and no try."

IMO that describes that "try" to a T. Oh we'll, we still won :D

 

[Mr Fourex]

Re: Finals Week 3 Discussion

That is a terrible rule. Needs to be changed in the off season. Is a knock-on every day of the week imo.

Agreed.......just another blight in the complete shitfight that has become the in goal grounding rule.

Did he mean to ground it?......not sure.......he placed a hand on it...yeah but did he MEAN to...??

he dropped it but regained it with his elbow ....was there separation?

What should we do.....we're not sure that it wasn't a try.....not sure it was a try........ahhhhh the ol' BOTD to the rescue again !!!!

.....etc etc

friggin' ridiculous!!!

 

[Coxy]

Re: Finals Week 3 Discussion

Notice how after every game there are debates about rules? Shows how far backwards the game has gone and continues to go

 

[Bucking Beads]

Re: Finals Week 3 Discussion

Notice how after every game there are debates about rules? Shows how far backwards the game has gone and continues to go

That is why I find it so hard to be a fan anymore. Why give a stuff when it is a game run by amateurs. We need to get fair dinkum because currently the AFL is belting the NRL

 

[simmo77]

Re: Finals Week 3 Discussion

I honestly believe that the video ref shouldn't be able to award botd tries. If he has doubt then flick it back down to the on field ref. He can then make up his mind from what he's seen and we would all be a little happier.

 

[Dexter]

Re: Finals Week 3 Discussion

Agreed.......just another blight in the complete shitfight that has become the in goal grounding rule.

Did he mean to ground it?......not sure.......he placed a hand on it...yeah but did he MEAN to...??

he dropped it but regained it with his elbow ....was there separation?

What should we do.....we're not sure that it wasn't a try.....not sure it was a try........ahhhhh the ol' BOTD to the rescue again !!!!

.....etc etc

friggin' ridiculous!!!

It shouldn't be ridiculous though, anyone who knows anything about the game can look at that and say no try( except for our refs). Like Sterlo said, these days a try is awarded because you're not certain it's not a try.

I still have not seen an angle which shows contact between the ball and his arm before it touches the ground, as a matter of fact the angle they showed after the game from side on slow mo IMO shows separation.

 

[Browny]

Re: Finals Week 3 Discussion

I couldn't believe that 10 mins into a GF qualifier we had another wrong decision. I just found it funny it was against manly.

rewrite the rule book in the offseason ffs

 

[Anonymous person]

Re: Finals Week 3 Discussion

It shouldn't be ridiculous though, anyone who knows anything about the game can look at that and say no try( except for our refs). Like Sterlo said, these days a try is awarded because you're not certain it's not a try.

I still have not seen an angle which shows contact between the ball and his arm before it touches the ground, as a matter of fact the angle they showed after the game from side on slow mo IMO shows separation.

Those people who "know the game" don't know it very well, as they don't even seem to know about the rule that I posted.

From the angles I saw there was no doubt slater "regained" the ball before it hit the ground. Rules say that's a try, so it was correctly awarded.

Is the rule stupid? Definitely. But please don't bring the old "anyone who knows the game" argument into it. It's as bad as the "fabric of the game" line. The rules make the game, and the rules say try.

I hope that next year the rules don't say that that is a try, along with many other rules being changed, but you work with what you've got.

 

[Mr Fourex]

Re: Finals Week 3 Discussion

It shouldn't be ridiculous though, anyone who knows anything about the game can look at that and say no try( except for our refs). Like Sterlo said, these days a try is awarded because you're not certain it's not a try.

I still have not seen an angle which shows contact between the ball and his arm before it touches the ground, as a matter of fact the angle they showed after the game from side on slow mo IMO shows separation.

Agreed Dexter.......what's making it ridiculous is the inept referees. They have no confidence in their own decision making and the video ref is so lost up there that he has focused more on what the rule book "fine print" is saying, rather than simply looking at the decision and using his knowledge of the game to make the right call.

You would expect these type of video ref decisions of late from someone who has never seen the game....has no prior knowledge to it .....and has been asked to make a call based simply on the rule book. This can't be done without first knowing which interpretations and nuances that each rule has in pertaining to each decision.

The BOTD ruling has to be scrapped.....

 

[m1c]

Re: Finals Week 3 Discussion

Agree with AP - according to the rule book he 'regained' it. However any sane person would come to the conclusion that he lost it.

There definitely needs to be some common sense applied to these decisions, I'd be surprised if the rule book isn't amended to that effect over the offseason. The main area of contention seems to be the grounding of the ball, and IMO this is because we have tried to take any subjectivity out of making these decisions. Seems good in theory, however this is how we've ended up with 'separation' and tries such as Slater's last night where he clearly was not in control. With the benefit of hindsight it has definitely not been for the better.

Super-slow-mo' replays have counter-intuitively created more problems than solved. A passage of play lasting a blink in real time is being elongated to 10 or 12 seconds as the frames are slowed. In the process all context of the movement is lost.

Decision making has become overcomplicated and often the sum of an objective check-list does not add up to the answer many arrive at when watching a put-down at normal, or slightly slower speed.

To me this suggests the process either needs to be further refined or completely scrapped.

 

[Anonymous person]

Re: Finals Week 3 Discussion

AP

You are the only one that is saying he regained it.

Slater must have been wearing velcro on his forearm for him to 'regain' it.

read the rule. all you have to do is have a part of your arm in contact with the ball again before it touches the ground for it to be classified as "regained". slater did this, and even if you think he might not have, you cant say with all certainty that he didnt - so benefit of the doubt applies, and goes to the attacking team.

if im the only one saying he regained it, how come it was awarded a try and the NRL have stated that it was awarded because there was no separation as he put the ball down?

"The official line from NRL officials was that there had not been separation between the ball and Slater's forearm as he went to put the ball down, but it was clear that the Kangaroos fullback had dropped it."

noones denying that he dropped it (or it was knocked out by foran), but what happened after he dropped it is just as important as the fact that he dropped it. despite what people seem to think, dropping the ball in any direction is not an insta-knock-on.

itd take a very brave and stubborn man to say with absolute certainty that no part of slaters arm was touching that ball as it hit the ground.

 

[Fozz]

Re: Finals Week 3 Discussion

For once, I agree with AP. I'm sure we've seen similar tries given this season so it would be retarded to change the ruling in the finals.

 

[Dexter]

Re: Finals Week 3 Discussion

Those people who "know the game" don't know it very well, as they don't even seem to know about the rule that I posted.

That is not a rule you posted AP it is a refs guideline to help the numpties interpret the rule. Below is the rule on grounding the ball.

C is irrelevant, he didn't comply with (a) because he didn't place the ball with his hands and he didn't comply with (b) because the only way the ball could be on the ground as the rule states is for Slater to have dropped it there which is a knock on.

Unless there is another part to the rule which I have missed or the refs guidelines are considered to overrule the laws then that is no try.

GROUNDING THE BALL means

(a) placing the ball on the ground with hand or
hands or

(b) exerting a downward pressure on the ball
with hand or arm, the ball itself being on the
ground or

(c) dropping on the ball and covering it with the
part of the body above the waist and below
the neck, the ball itself being on the ground