If a player throws a ball deliberately into another player there will be a penalty

[BennyV]

Yeah you’re clutching at straws now. McInnes tried to milk a penalty, they caught him out.

I don’t mind if this kind of thing remains a penalty or not but the player trying to milk a penalty should never be rewarded.

But a player in an offside position creating a disadvantage to the attacking team should be rewarded?

 

[SBD82]

Yeah you’re clutching at straws now. McInnes tried to milk a penalty, they caught him out.

Clutching at straws? So Jackson wasn't offside?

I don’t mind if this kind of thing remains a penalty or not but the player trying to milk a penalty should never be rewarded.

Sure. And neither should an offside player who is in the way of the attacking team.

 

[Barkley]

But a player in an offside position creating a disadvantage to the attacking team should be rewarded?

As I said I don’t mind if this is a penalty or not. I’m happy for this to be play on. But the penalty certainly should not be awarded to the player trying to milk.

 

[no name]

If McInness made any other play, it would have disadvantaged the Dragons.
Pretty shitty that after winning the ruck they have to disadvantage themselves to keep the ball.

 

[Canard]

As I said I don’t mind if this is a penalty or not. I’m happy for this to be play on. But the penalty certainly should not be awarded to the player trying to milk.

I put it to you that it was Jackson that was trying to milk a penalty

 

[Barkley]

Clutching at straws? So Jackson wasn't offside?

Of course but he was out of the ruck and McInnes deliberately passed at him for a penalty. They deemed McInnes offence the more serious breach and ruled as such.

Anyway 24hrs later the penalty stands and it will still stand tomorrow. I’m not trying to change your mind. I’m happy with the ruling as long as it is applied consistently.

 

[Barkley]

I put it to you that it was Jackson that was trying to milk a penalty

Maybe...then Jackson’s milking game is exceptional. Maybe Jackson knew McInnes couldn’t resist and coaxed him into it. But let’s not give him too much credit just yet.

 

[big hit!]

I put it to you that it was Jackson that was trying to milk a penalty

exactly. the fittest bloke at Canterbury couldn't get back onside? they've got massive problems.

shit penalty. it's not like the merkin was off his feet and mcinnes passed it into him and in no direction to a teammate. jackson was standing to the side of the ruck and made no attempt to get out of the way.

f**king refs have got no common sense and analysis of the situation. sutton has said throwing the ball into an opposing player is penalised so that is it. dickheads.

 

[Rodent]

The milking by McInnes is just highlighting the obvious option that has been taken away from him (passing from the ground to an obvious receiver). The ref should have known this. If McInnes had taken a ridiculous option (like Milford or Will Smith), the penalty against him would have been fair.
You can't reward offside defenders who take away desirable options from the dummy half or else they'll continue to loiter around the ruck.

 

[typicalfan]

Not to mention Jackson had an age to move he didn’t even attempt to avoid.

 

[typicalfan]

Double

 

[Pedge1971]

“What you’ll see from this weekend is if a player throws a ball deliberately into another player there will be a penalty.

“I’ve given a directive to the referees today to make sure that doesn’t happen.

“I didn’t like what I saw on the weekend and we’ll change that immediately.”

https://wwos.nine.com.au/2018/05/21/19/03/todd-greenberg-clamps-down-on-nrl

Bump

 

[age.s]

geniused rule.

 

[M2D2]

geniused rule.

Good rule.

 

[typicalfan]

Thats what the Dragons get for getting rid of Cook and thinking McInnes was a better option

 

[Bazal]

geniused rule.

Yep.

But not as geniused as a hooker, who has already been penalised for it once this year, throwing a footy smack into an opposing player in an elimination semi-final.

It should just be play on, but the rule is there. Let's not gloss over McInness' stupidity. He is an NRL hooker, he knows the rule. He absolutely f**ked up and he should be publicly flogged in both St George and Wollongong for it.

 

[Hutty1986]

Bet you won't see it enforced ever again. Zero accountability on the bloke intentionally lying in the ruck.

 

[Sans Souci Sainter]

Bet you won't see it enforced ever again. Zero accountability on the bloke intentionally lying in the ruck.

He was kneeling bolt upright, not even trying to lay down or get out of the way.

Bullshit rule.

It’s no good to us now though, and yes, ultimately it is a McInnes f**kup.

McInnes, Ah Mau, and Hunt all has game changing mistakes.

 

[Tommy Smith]

When you pull a Will Smith as dummy half then by all means, penalise him.

But when the hooker throws the ball in a clearly natural motion to the would-be first receiver - only for the ball to hit a defender directly in its path and making no attempt to role away - then FFS use some common sense and call play on.

The difference between the two types of incidents is blinding. And they should be ruled differently as such.

What you don't do is blow a penalty against the attacking team at 10-10 all with 7 minutes left in a knock out semi. That's just mental and is the definitive example of our referees lacking game sense.

 

[Bazal]

When you pull a Will Smith as dummy half then by all means, penalise him.

But when the hooker throws the ball in a clearly natural motion to the would-be first receiver - only for the ball to hit a defender directly in its path and making no attempt to role away - then FFS use some common sense and call play on.

The difference between the two types of incidents is blinding. And they should be ruled differently as such.

What you don't do is blow a penalty against the attacking team at 10-10 all with 7 minutes left in a knock out semi. That's just mental and is the definitive example of our referees lacking game sense.

Agreed. Well, partly.

Unfortunately, the knee-jerk rule they made, and the rule that Cameron McInness plays under, does not state that as an allowance I don't think.

There are two discussions here. Is the rule shit and poorly considered? Yes.

Is Cameron McInness a complete idiot who should have known better? Also yes. He'd already been penalised for it during the season! Blaming the rule or the way the referee ruled takes the onus off him to make the right decision

The rule needs to change during the off-season, just make it play on regardless. Trying to prove intent either way, from the acting half or the offside player, is just leaving it open to individual interpretation and we saw how well that went with the obstruction rules....