NRL Rules Discussion

[Anonymous person]

I already posted the benefit of the doubt rule, its found in the referee guidelines......

so I ask again, if the only place that it is defined is in the referees guidelines, and that definition is enforced in the nrl, doesn't that indicate that the referees guidelines are in fact rules? If you disagree id like to hear your explanation for the benefit of the doubt rule being enforced even though it is only defined in the guidelines and not the laws.

 

[Dexter]

No, you posted a sentence that refers to the BoD rule, so what is the rule, show me a definition.

It's like referring to the knock on rule but having no definition of what a knock on is.

 

[Anonymous person]

Seriously?

Doesn't the fact that the most up to date laws of the game, direct from the nrl, makesno mention of benefit of the doubt yet the referees guidelines do kinda point to the guidelines being enforceable rules? since, you know, its a rule that is applied to seemingly every second try these days.

 

[fredie]

rules state. you touch sideline . you are ruled out of play

 

[Dexter]

Seriously?

Doesn't the fact that the most up to date laws of the game, direct from the nrl, makesno mention of benefit of the doubt yet the referees guidelines do kinda point to the guidelines being enforceable rules? since, you know, its a rule that is applied to seemingly every second try these days.

So show me the rule please.

 

[Anonymous person]

there is only one mention of benefit of the doubt in the guidelines and no mentions of it in the laws of the game. one would infer that that means that what is in the guidelines is classified as a rule, since if its not it means that there is no such thing as benefit of the doubt in rugby league.

so like i asked before, is there no benefit of the doubt rule in rugby league? if you believe the guidelines arent rules then that is what you are saying, and as such every "benefit of the doubt" try over the last few years has been incorrectly ruled.

better bust out the pen and paper and write a letter informing the NRL that theyve been wrong this whole time.

 

[Dexter]

So you can't show me a rule or definition that says what it is which makes what I said correct. It is not defined anywhere.

 

[Anonymous person]

benefit of the doubt.......it explains itself.

they define things like "Knock on" because its a rugby league term. in describing knock-on they dont then go and define the word "forward" do they? no, because its an every day word/term. same goes for benefit of the doubt.

the rule says that benefit of the doubt goes to the attacking team. that in itself is the rule. what do you want them to do, define the word "benefit"? or is it "doubt" that youre having trouble with?

"benefit of the doubt" doesnt need to be defined because it is already defined in the english language.

if the rule is not defined anywhere then it cant be enforced, so like i said, get the old pen and paper out and let the NRL know theyre incorrectly officiating.

 

[Dexter]

So does it mean benefit of the doubt goes to the attacking team everywhere. Like if the ref isn't sure if there is a knock on, does BoD apply then or any other occurrence during a game. No, it doesn't so show me a definition of what is BoD. Not your thoughts on it an official definiton.

 

[Anonymous person]

So you're saying that the nrl has been officiating incorrectly and against the rules for years. Got it.

 

[Jeba]

What does the rule book say about going on the field with a cricket bat?

 

[Dexter]

The rule book says you can't but under the guidelines you get BoD.

 

[Anonymous person]

What does the rule book say about going on the field with a cricket bat?

Section 4. The Players and Players’ Equipment (continued)

"4. (a) A player shall not wear anything that might prove
dangerous to other players.
(b) A player’s normal gear shall consist of a
numbered jersey of distinctive colour and/or
pattern, a pair of shorts, socks of distinctive
colour and/or pattern and studded boots or
shoes.
(c) Protective clothing may be worn provided it
contains nothing of a rigid or dangerous nature.
(d) The referee shall order a player to remove any
part of his equipment which might be considered
dangerous and shall not allow the player to take
any further part in the game until the order is
obeyed. The player shall retire from the playing
field to remove the offending item if the start or
re-start of the game would otherwise be delayed."

i dont believe cricket bat comes under jersey/shorts/socks/books/shoes.

 

[fredie]

if you touch the touchline and score . touching the line is overlooked. just like what happened with the bulldogs

 

[Jeba]

There doesn't say anything about cricket bat.

 

[Anonymous person]

There doesn't say anything about cricket bat.

By specifically stating what is allowed means anything that's not stated is not allowed. A cricket bat isn't stated as allowed, so it's not allowed.

 

[Dexter]

So you're saying that the nrl has been officiating incorrectly and against the rules for years. Got it.

Show me where I said that.

 

[Jeba]

By specifically stating what is allowed means anything that's not stated is not allowed. A cricket bat isn't stated as allowed, so it's not allowed.

I can't see the words cricket bat anywhere.