NRL Rules Discussion

[Anonymous person]

Re: Finals Week 3 Discussion

ah good catch. you got me on that one. damn space in "down town" got me, not there on the ref guidelines!!!! lol

still doesnt change anything though. find these in there and then maybe we can talk:

1. separation while grounding the ball for a try.
2. stealing/stripping the ball while the ball carrier is attempting to ground the ball for a try
3. chicken wing.
4. sliding feet first tackle.
5. quick restart for 20m tap.

and heres the biggy.....

6. benefit of the doubt.

yes, you read that right - benefit of the doubt is NOWHERE in the "Laws of the Game" document. not 1 mention of it. the ONLY place it is mentioned is ****drumroll**** in the Referees Guidelines!

game.
set.
match.

edit: just found another big one - theres no mention of a video referee in the "Laws of the Game" either! so i guess the NRL has been operating outside of the rules for all of these years!!!! someone alert the press!! again, the only mention of a video referee is in the "Referee's Guidelines".

 

[Dexter]

Re: Finals Week 3 Discussion

wow.

ok how about this example then - stripping the ball while the ball carrier is in the act of grounding the ball.

this was brought in a few years back, correct? you agree that it is 100% legal for the defenders to strip the ball carrier of the ball if he is attempting to ground the ball in-goals, no matter how many defenders are in the tackle, correct?

well its not in the laws of the game either. nowhere. the only mentions of stealing/stripping the ball are saying 1-on-1 is ok, 2 or more on 1 is not. the REFEREE GUIDELINES however were amended to have the following:

"The ball may be stripped from the ball carrier if the ball carrier is attempting to ground the ball
for a try."

so i ask you again dexter, if the referee guidelines are not rules then why are the rules contained in it being enforced?

what dont you understand about the fact that the Referees Guidelines are used to amend rules to the laws of the game, without the need to edit the laws of the game document 3/4/5/6/7+ times a year? its really not hard to understand at all.

You must have an out of date set of the Laws of the Game

Stealing ball 9.

Where a player steals the ball from a player on whom he is effecting
a tackle, play will be allowed to continue. Where two or more players
are effecting the same tackle - irrespective of whether all but one
“drops off” the tackle, and the ball is subsequently taken from the
tackled player, a penalty will be awarded against the player or players
effecting the tackle unless the tackled player is attempting to ground
the ball for a try.

 

[Anonymous person]

Re: Finals Week 3 Discussion

You must have an out of date set of the Laws of the Game

Stealing ball 9.

Where a player steals the ball from a player on whom he is effecting
a tackle, play will be allowed to continue. Where two or more players
are effecting the same tackle - irrespective of whether all but one
“drops off” the tackle, and the ball is subsequently taken from the
tackled player, a penalty will be awarded against the player or players
effecting the tackle unless the tackled player is attempting to ground
the ball for a try.

haha you got me again, damn outdated one. guess theyve added that one in since then.

now find these please:

1. separation while grounding the ball for a try.
2. FOUND!
3. chicken wing.
4. sliding feet first tackle.
5. quick restart for 20m tap.
6. Benefit of the doubt
7. Video referee

now that im on the latest "Laws" via the NRL site, i have checked and none of the remaining 6 are referenced at all.

 

[Coxy]

Re: Finals Week 3 Discussion

This thread needs moar bibliography

 

[Ghibli]

Re: Finals Week 3 Discussion

Geeze AP you have a lot of time on your hands to type loads of dribble.

 

[Dexter]

Re: Finals Week 3 Discussion

haha you got me again, damn outdated one. guess theyve added that one in since then.

now find these please:

1. separation while grounding the ball for a try. Separation is not against the rules it's only an occurrence which can happen during play and it has been defined so the numpties know that if there is separation the ball can be regained providing it doesn't hit another player. Talk about complicating the lost ball rule.

2. FOUND!

3. chicken wing. Covered that but here it is covered again under aa more specific Law of the Game

Foul “throws” 1. (a) A tackler must not make use of any special “holds” or
“throws” which are likely to cause injury or use his knees
in the tackle.


4. sliding feet first tackle.

Covered that, it's striking if you slide feet first into another player. You can still place your legs/feet under the ball but if you slide in and make contact it's striking.

5. quick restart for 20m tap. ??

Why would it be in the rules, you're still tapping the ball and playing on. IIRC the refs introduced a guideline because they used to cop sh@t for delaying the game until the defending side (read the ref) was onside. So instead of just admitting they were ruling it incorrectly they make a guideline as if to say this is new. Let me tell you we used to play on straight away when I was playing juniors and that was 35 - 40 years ago. Lewis was brilliant at it in his day.


6. Benefit of the doubt. There is no such thing as a Benefit of the doubt rule, it is not defined anywhere I can see in the Laws or guidelines.

7. Video referee He is still a referree isn't he and therefore defined in the Laws of the game, but I agree they should include this term for the sake of accuracy.

"The Referees Guidelines 2011 an explanatory Guide" are not the "Laws of the game 2012" they are simply meant to help the nuffies out but a lot of the time all they do is confuse them more.

 

[Dexter]

Re: Finals Week 3 Discussion

Geeze A{ you have a lot of time on your hands to type loads of dribble.

Haha and you have lots of time to read it.

 

[Anonymous person]

Re: Finals Week 3 Discussion

1. separation while grounding the ball for a try. Separation is not against the rules it's only an occurrence which can happen during play and it has been defined so the numpties know that if there is separation the ball can be regained providing it doesn't hit another player. Talk about complicating the lost ball rule.

ah but you see up until the last few years the only way to regain the ball was to get control of it. you couldnt regain control with your forearm. you can now, as per the guidelines.

3. chicken wing. Covered that but here it is covered again under aa more specific Law of the Game

Foul “throws” 1. (a) A tackler must not make use of any special “holds” or
“throws” which are likely to cause injury or use his knees
in the tackle.

and again, up until last year or the year before the "chicken wing" was a legal tackle. only now has it been added to the list of illegal techniques listed in the guidelines.

4. sliding feet first tackle.

Covered that, it's striking if you slide feet first into another player. You can still place your legs/feet under the ball but if you slide in and make contact it's striking.

nope, didnt cover that. its not striking lol. again, the 'striking' rule has ALWAYS been there in the "laws", yet up until last year sliding in feet first was 100% legal. sliding in has been put in the guidelines now though, and as such is illegal.

do you see how what youre saying doesnt make sense? NOTHING changed in the Laws to stop this, yet it is now illegal whereas it wasnt 2 years ago. the only thing thats changed is the Referees Guidelines.

5. quick restart for 20m tap. ??

Why would it be in the rules, you're still tapping the ball and playing on. IIRC the refs introduced a guideline because they used to cop sh@t for delaying the game until the defending side (read the ref) was onside. So instead of just admitting they were ruling it incorrectly they make a guideline as if to say this is new. Let me tell you we used to play on straight away when I was playing juniors and that was 35 - 40 years ago. Lewis was brilliant at it in his day.

itd be in the rules because before you had to wait for everyone to be onside and the referees ready whereas now the person who takes the ball in-goals on the full can tap the ball as soon as they get to the line, and only if they dont pass/kick the ball upfield to another player. again, its a new rule that is not in the "Laws" but is in the "guidelines" and is enforced.

6. Benefit of the doubt. There is no such thing as a Benefit of the doubt rule, it is not defined anywhere I can see in the Laws or guidelines.

wait, so youre saying that when the words "BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT" come up on the big screen its not an actual rule? theres no actual rule that the attacking team gets the benefit of the doubt? youre really going to try and argue this?

and yes, it is in the guidelines: http://www.rugbyleague.com.au/nrl/referee_guidelines.pdf

"BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT
The Benefit of the Doubt rule applies to the attacking team."

7. Video referee He is still a referree isn't he and therefore defined in the Laws of the game, but I agree they should include this term for the sake of accuracy.

the number of referees is defined in the "Laws".

"One Referee
Two Touch Judges

1. In all matches, a Referee and two Touch Judges shall be appointed or mutually agreed upon by the
contesting teams"

why does it say one referee if the video referees are referees? The video referee is, however, mentioned in the "guidelines" and it specifies what they can rule on.

"The Referees Guidelines 2011 an explanatory Guide" are not the "Laws of the game 2012" they are simply meant to help the nuffies out but a lot of the time all they do is confuse them more.

theyre not the "Laws of the game 2012", correct. theyre the "Referee's Guidelines" and they are there to house all of the new rules that havent yet been added to the "Laws of the Game" (like the in-goal strip and down town now have).

the fact that you think there is no benefit of the doubt rule says all that needs to be said.

 

[Dexter]

Re: Finals Week 3 Discussion

AP I think you are wrong, I have stated why, nothing you have said has or will change my mind. The game got along just fine before Harrigan had to justify his position and introduce guidelines in an effort to get consistency in interpretations of the Laws.

 

[Anonymous person]

Re: Finals Week 3 Discussion

So there's no benefit of the doubt to the attacking team?

 

[Big Pete]

Re: Finals Week 3 Discussion

ENOUGH!

If you want to continue your boring self-indulgent debate about the rules, feel free to start a thread. For now, let's focus on the upcoming contest shall we?

 

[Browny]

Re: Finals Week 3 Discussion

Shit by the time I read all this it'll be grand final day

 

[Coxy]

Re: Finals Week 3 Discussion

Amen Pete. This is Quite possibly the most boring thread ever

 

[Mr Fourex]

Re: Finals Week 3 Discussion

"The Referees Guidelines 2011 an explanatory Guide"

Who's the author of this guide.......?

 

[Dexter]

Re: Finals Week 3 Discussion

Sorry I am out.

 

[Porthoz]

Please keep rules related discussions in this thread, thanks! :thumbup1:

 

[Anonymous person]

Re: Finals Week 3 Discussion

So there's no benefit of the doubt to the attacking team?

I still want to see dexters answer to this.

 

[Dexter]

Re: Finals Week 3 Discussion

I never said there wasn't AP, once again you have deliberately taken a part of what I wrote and failed to comprehend the meaning of the full sentence.
I said there is no definition of what is BoD. The refs guidelines refer to the BoD rule but there is no rule defined either in the guidelines or the laws as far as I can see. Maybe you can find it but I can't.

Once again we know each others position on this so save yourself the trouble of breaking down every post and arguing every comma and fullstop and quoting bits and pieces of posts to argue a point.
Every time you argue something it ends up lightyears away from the original difference of opinion.

I still maintain The laws are the laws and the guidelines are there to help interpret them, you think otherwise, so until you can post some official opinion that confirms different I'll stick with what I think.

Feel free to have the last say.