POST GAME [Round 18, 2022] Broncos vs Titans

[McHunt]

That and the important fact he wasn’t held which makes any subsequent movement fine. No question of a double movement.

Surprisingly not being held isn't relevant. Once you ground, you can't make another effort to ground, unless your body is already moving forward. It's strictly about momentum.

Annesley explains exactly that here:

Double-movement rule is tilting at windmills: NRL is better without it

In rugby league, as in life, everybody has a beef about something. Could be flat passes being called forward. Could be on-field referees who…

www.theroar.com.au

 

[Kimlo]

Hey @Kimlo love your posts mate but I have to disagree with you here.
You say the only thing that matters is if the arm was promoted after the point of the ball touching the grass, and that momentum only matters if the arm doesn't move forward.
But the rule that you quoted clearly says the opposite.
"It will not be a double movement if the ball would have finished over the goal line regardless of any subsequent movement of the ball or the arm carrying the ball."

That is true, that's the only exception though, if the ball would have ended up over the line even if they didn't move their arm, it'd be a try even if they did promote the ball.

I've never liked double movement as a rule, I think if you can reach out you should be allowed to reach out and score but I'm sure there's a good reason, or maybe it was a knee jerk rule change back in the day and somethings never change.

 

[mrslong]

That is true, that's the only exception though, if the ball would have ended up over the line even if they didn't move their arm, it'd be a try even if they did promote the ball.

I've never liked double movement as a rule, I think if you can reach out you should be allowed to reach out and score but I'm sure there's a good reason, or maybe it was a knee jerk rule change back in the day and somethings never change.

It's the only time a legs tackle is rewarded. I'll allow it.

 

[heartly87]

Would it though if he hadn’t promoted it? I don’t think so because he was basically stopped to the point he had to reach out.

There is no doubt he didn’t deliberately do a double movement but once the ball hit the ground, continuing the movement is a double movement regardless of intent as he was held. He mistimed the arm movement, good lesson to learn.

My problem with this is he started promoting the ball before it touched the ground and his arm never stopped moving, the ball didn't stop. It was a harsh ruling and I feel it wouldn't be pulled up in other games.

 

[Socnorb]

T

My problem with this is he started promoting the ball before it touched the ground and his arm never stopped moving, the ball didn't stop. It was a harsh ruling and I feel it wouldn't be pulled up in other games.

True, and the point is no one was complaining here. it wasn't like there was outrage, everyone just thought fair try. I watched the game on replay, but knew the score, when I saw him go over I legit though I must have got the score wrong.

 

[Dash]

Surprisingly not being held isn't relevant. Once you ground, you can't make another effort to ground, unless your body is already moving forward. It's strictly about momentum.

Annesley explains exactly that here:

Double-movement rule is tilting at windmills: NRL is better without it

In rugby league, as in life, everybody has a beef about something. Could be flat passes being called forward. Could be on-field referees who…

www.theroar.com.au

Annesley says nothing of the sort.

If nobody is touching you, you can get up and run again if you so wish. You can also reach out to score.

 

[McHunt]

Annesley says nothing of the sort.

If nobody is touching you, you can get up and run again if you so wish. You can also reach out to score.

Define touching.

 

[Super Freak]

Except if momentum would have carried the ball over the line then the rule says it's still a try, double movement doesn't apply.
"...it will not be a double movement if the ball would have finished over the goal line regardless of any subsequent movement of the ball or the arm carrying the ball"

If they’re guaranteed to score, yes it would still be a try. But there were question marks whether he would have made it so any promotion of the ball by him automatically cancelled that out and it got taken from him.

 

[Huge]

Half of Kennedy’s tackles are flops after the tackle is already made. Pretty hard to **** that up, yet he does by giving away penalties within moments of coming on the field. Why won’t you discuss this, Huge?

Err, what? Half are flops? What penalties? Isn't he the least penalised Bronco? Or at least is one who seldom concedes penalties. Happy to discuss things that ACTUALLY happen

 

[Huge]

Half of Kennedy’s tackles are flops after the tackle is already made. Pretty hard to **** that up, yet he does by giving away penalties within moments of coming on the field. Why won’t you discuss this, Huge?

You prompted me to have a look at these penalties you mention particularly the flops which must be penalised a lot as you say (there's 65 of them according to you)

So, Zero Tackle says that RK is ranked 327th in penalties conceded with a grand total of 1.

Yes, one penalty in seven appearances. So, what would you like to discuss? Your apology?

 

[Dash]

Define touching.

Hands or body on the attacker. Legs don't count.

 

[Cult]

You prompted me to have a look at these penalties you mention particularly the flops which must be penalised a lot as you say (there's 65 of them according to you)

So, Zero Tackle says that RK is ranked 327th in penalties conceded with a grand total of 1.

Yes, one penalty in seven appearances. So, what would you like to discuss? Your apology?

He literally gave it away moments from coming on the field on the weekend. Luckily for him, not all flops are penalized. He does fall onto tackles after the tackle is made often Huge, actually watching games instead of reading stats shows that.

 

[BroncsFan]

Remembering that this one among many others has been given a try

Dearden stopped short and tackled, ball arm clearly grounded well short and a deliberate second movement of the arm to promote the ball to the ingoal... but that's all good apparently

 

[Xzei]

I think Foran will do a similar job in a lot of ways if he can stay fit. I dont think on the field he will have quite the same influence Arey does though.

i think he will be a bust for the tits,sexton or w/e his name is really needs a controlling half like arey or the chad foran just doesnt reem like the guy that will do that for them.
in all honesty they need to lose fifita and spend on a quality 9 and 7.
fancy letting fogarty go lol

 

[Renegade]

I think Foran will do a similar job in a lot of ways if he can stay fit. I dont think on the field he will have quite the same influence Arey does though.

Foran only plays well for manly. Terrible signing for them.

 

[Mustafur]

Foran only plays well for manly. Terrible signing for them.

One of two things will happen, he will lose his mind sighting he needs to go back to Sydney or he will be injured most of the time.

It's crazy how when he left Manly the first time he spent most of it on the sidelines then when he comes back suddenly he works again and there is no issues.

 

[Wolfie]

i think he will be a bust for the tits,sexton or w/e his name is really needs a controlling half like arey or the chad foran just doesnt reem like the guy that will do that for them.
in all honesty they need to lose fifita and spend on a quality 9 and 7.
fancy letting fogarty go lol

I dont think Fogarty is much of a loss for them tbh. With Foran its really going to depend on his fitness. When he was on the field for the Dogs he was pretty good.

 

[heartly87]

Remembering that this one among many others has been given a try

Dearden stopped short and tackled, ball arm clearly grounded well short and a deliberate second movement of the arm to promote the ball to the ingoal... but that's all good apparently

Yeah if he made the same motion and the ball never came away from the ground it would have been play on. It is a stupid rule interpretation, and all commentary of it over the weekend has been that it was a harsh interpretation.