Round 11 Discussion

[Dexter]

Nah. Plenty of examples of otherwise (ie Matterson on Friday night). I think the doctors can review footage and call for a the HIA.

The docs only get involved when a player is wobbling about like Matterson but in his case it was fairly early on so the chooks wanted to leave him on so they didn't stuff up their rotations.
In cases like Frizell today he was clearly ok.
If shows like 360 were fair dinkum they would do a comparison of when clubs try to leave a clearly affected player on and when they take them off when they seem fine or cop the slightest knock then correlate that with the time in the game.
Would be interesting reading.

 

[Super Freak]

I think the Dragons are hitting a bit of a wall.

They have been underwhelming the past couple of weeks. They were dominated by the Rabbitohs and they only just beat the Raiders with a piece of brilliance from Dufty. But they weren't anywhere near their best in either of those games.

Even against the Storm they still started off with a lot of errors.

We'll see if they have another gear in them, because they will go downhill if they don't.

 

[OXY-351]

Did anyone see the sharks dogs game yesterday where one of the sharks players went to kick it, dropped it, but kicked it on the first bounce?

I'm wondering how this was any different to Slaters effort. I'd be happy for both to be called a knock on, but the NRL came out and said the Slater ruling was correct, so I fail to see how yesterdays one was any different. Sure the "kick" yesterday was probably an even worse attempt at a drop kick than Slaters, but he still dropped the ball with the clear intention to kick it, and ended up kicking it on the first bounce.

I just get sick of the inconsitency with rulings in the game .....

 

[Morkel]

Did anyone see the sharks dogs game yesterday where one of the sharks players went to kick it, dropped it, but kicked it on the first bounce?

I'm wondering how this was any different to Slaters effort. I'd be happy for both to be called a knock on, but the NRL came out and said the Slater ruling was correct, so I fail to see how yesterdays one was any different. Sure the "kick" yesterday was probably an even worse attempt at a drop kick than Slaters, but he still dropped the ball with the clear intention to kick it, and ended up kicking it on the first bounce.

I just get sick of the inconsitency with rulings in the game .....

I saw it too, but IIRC the opposition grabbed the ball and got tackled pretty much on the spot where the "kick" came from, so it didn't matter if it was a kick or knock-on anyway.

When I saw it, it did remind me of the Slater one, which got me thinking - was Slater credited with a 0/1 Field Goal stat by any of the stat sites?

 

[broncos4life]

I saw it too, but IIRC the opposition grabbed the ball and got tackled pretty much on the spot where the "kick" came from, so it didn't matter if it was a kick or knock-on anyway.

When I saw it, it did remind me of the Slater one, which got me thinking - was Slater credited with a 0/1 Field Goal stat by any of the stat sites?

He kicked it and Valentine Holmes ran through and scored but that try was denied because the bunker found insufficient to conclude that Joseph Paulo was Billy Slater.

 

[OXY-351]

I saw it too, but IIRC the opposition grabbed the ball and got tackled pretty much on the spot where the "kick" came from, so it didn't matter if it was a kick or knock-on anyway.

Nah, it led directly to a try, but it got ruled as knock on as opposed to a drop kick. Other than that, there didn't seem any other issues with the play.

It didn't really affect the outcome in the end, but would have been interesting to see the reaction if it had.

 

[Morkel]

Wow, my memory is shit. My wife is right.

 

[Super Freak]

To be fair, Paulo didn't kick the ball. He went to kick it, missed it and then his foot has gone over the ball.

But the ruling was interesting. These were the exact words from the video ref.

Joseph Paulo drops the ball and it makes contact with the ground constituting a knock on.

 

[OXY-351]

To be fair, Paulo didn't kick the ball. He went to kick it, missed it and then his foot has gone over the ball.

But the ruling was interesting. These were the exact words from the video ref.

Joseph Paulo drops the ball and it makes contact with the ground constituting a knock on.

Yeah, it was even worse than Slaters attempted at a kick, but technically speaking he was attempting a kick, and he ended up doing a a drop kick, as unpretty as it was.

I'm happy for it to be called a knock on, but it's interesting the NRL come out a few weeks ago and defend the Slater decision, citing the rules were actually interpreted correctly. I wonder if they would have come out and said the ref's got this one wrong, had it actually had some major impact on the match.