The "held" Rule

Big Pete

International Captain
25,832
10,244
Brisbane
Fair call, it was called well before they dragged the St George player over the sideline and it was clear the ball carrier wasn't going to make anymore progress.
 

Big Pete

International Captain
25,832
10,244
Brisbane
You're right, but it shouldn't have been called held in the first place.
The rules are pretty clear in this instance, let me highlight the relevant passage.

TACKLE AND PLAY THE BALL

A player in possession is tackled

:Grounded a . ‘when he is held by one or more opposing players and the ball or the hand or arm holding the ball comes into contact with the ground

.’Upright b . ‘when he is held by one or more opposing players in such a manner that he can make no further progress and cannot part with the ball.’
 

Big Pete

International Captain
25,832
10,244
Brisbane
Backward progress is still progress. The intention of that rule is for when the tackle comes to a standstill, and you know that.
Progress is advancing, moving forward - to be driven backwards would be to regress.

The intention of the rule is to prevent the defence from getting carried away. Otherwise teams could theoretically drive another player backwards from their try-line to the opposition's dead ball line.
 

Tom

State of Origin Rep
7,823
7,316
Progress is advancing, moving forward - to be driven backwards would be to regress.

The intention of the rule is to prevent the defence from getting carried away. Otherwise teams could theoretically drive another player backwards from their try-line to the opposition's dead ball line.
If they can do it then so be it, I'd like to see that. Why on Earth do they let it gohalf the time then? I think Dash is right. Your interpretation of the rule then there's no need or advantage to gain from dominating in a tackle. If the wording needs clearing up then it's something they should definitely do.
 

Dash

NRL Captain
3,059
2,252
Brisbane
Progress is advancing, moving forward - to be driven backwards would be to regress.

The intention of the rule is to prevent the defence from getting carried away. Otherwise teams could theoretically drive another player backwards from their try-line to the opposition's dead ball line.
Well then I expect you to be calling for a penalty every single time someone gets driven back in-goal.
 

Big Pete

International Captain
25,832
10,244
Brisbane
If they can do it then so be it, I'd like to see that. Why on Earth do they let it gohalf the time then? I think Dash is right. Your interpretation of the rule then there's no need or advantage to gain from dominating in a tackle. If the wording needs clearing up then it's something they should definitely do.
How many situations have there been this season where a team has dragged a player 15m over the sideline? They're fairly consistent on that front.
 

Tom

State of Origin Rep
7,823
7,316
How many situations have there been this season where a team has dragged a player 15m over the sideline? They're fairly consistent on that front.
If they are dragging them back it shouldn't matter. But for some reason it does sometimes.
 

Tom

State of Origin Rep
7,823
7,316
How many situations have there been this season where a team has dragged a player 15m over the sideline? They're fairly consistent on that front.
Do you think Gordon Tallis' ragdoll of Hodgson was a fair tackle?
 

Big Pete

International Captain
25,832
10,244
Brisbane
Do you think Gordon Tallis' ragdoll of Hodgson was a fair tackle?
I don't think it's 1:1 since the Dragon's player was dragged back by a considerable distance. On the Tallis example while it's lineball, Hodgson did slide forward which suggested he had yet to succumb to the tackle.
 

Tom

State of Origin Rep
7,823
7,316
I don't think it's 1:1 since the Dragon's player was dragged back by a considerable distance. On the Tallis example while it's lineball, Hodgson did slide forward which suggested he had yet to succumb to the tackle.
Mate fact is he got overwhelmingly dominated, which there should be a reward for.
 

Dash

NRL Captain
3,059
2,252
Brisbane
I don't think it's 1:1 since the Dragon's player was dragged back by a considerable distance. On the Tallis example while it's lineball, Hodgson did slide forward which suggested he had yet to succumb to the tackle.
Hodgson had succumbed about 15m before he reached the sideline.
 

Big Pete

International Captain
25,832
10,244
Brisbane
Mate fact is he got overwhelmingly dominated, which there should be a reward for.
There was a reward and the women decided to go on with it.

Look you can still feel hard done by but I'm just giving you some clarity. By the rules the refs were within their rights.
 

Tom

State of Origin Rep
7,823
7,316
There was a reward and the women decided to go on with it.

Look you can still feel hard done by but I'm just giving you some clarity. By the rules the refs were within their rights.
Yeah it's fucked up wording, that's what I said. It needs to be changed. I want to see aggressive defence rewarded, like it used to be. It's only the last few seasons they've been reffing it that way. Change the rule back to what it used to be, if both their legs are off the ground then call held. If they can't find the ground bad luck.
 

Big Pete

International Captain
25,832
10,244
Brisbane
Yeah it's fucked up wording, that's what I said. It needs to be changed. I want to see aggressive defence rewarded, like it used to be. It's only the last few seasons they've been reffing it that way. Change the rule back to what it used to be, if both their legs are off the ground then call held. If they can't find the ground bad luck.
The rule changed 13 years ago. Ball carriers weren't being protected and defensive sides were doing everything to exploit it. Again if you're fine with that more power to you but they got it right this arvo.
 

Tom

State of Origin Rep
7,823
7,316
The rule changed 13 years ago. Ball carriers weren't being protected and defensive sides were doing everything to exploit it. Again if you're fine with that more power to you but they got it right this arvo.
Wtf do you mean ball carriers weren't being protected? They aren't meant to be protected. It's not netball.
 

Big Pete

International Captain
25,832
10,244
Brisbane
Wtf do you mean ball carriers weren't being protected? They aren't meant to be protected. It's not netball.
The most prolific example was Fitzhenry who broke his collarbone because of that tackle but there were plenty of examples where teams would hold a player up and find a way to injure them. It wasn't safe and it was just another way for teams to slow things down.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create free account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Login or Register

Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Register now

Twitter

Top