Konrad, Kahu and the kick

[Bretto]

The penalty can only be awarded for misconduct. What Konrad did does not fit player misconduct... No one was in danger from his actions...

The referees deemed the play illegal and dangerous (which it was, and has been since 2008). Hence, penalty try.

 

[Nice Beaver]

I'm so over players illegally infringing on the line to stop tries

How about illegal infringements when scoring them?

If Hurrell had intent, what the hell do you call dog Roberts' effort at the other end.

Video ref seemed to move past that one OK....

 

[ghostface]

The referees deemed the play illegal and dangerous (which it was, and has been since 2008). Hence, penalty try.

Dangerous... Bretto you are kidding right. You would fit right in with the current crop of refs.

 

[Bretto]

I mean, if you wanna go on about whether Conrad meant to kick the ball, or was simply trying to get his foot under the ball, you also have to explore the other side of the coin and wonder if he had kicked how he did, but smashed Kahu in the face and broken his jaw, what would we be saying then?

Don't worry about what ifs and maybes, look at the incident. What does it look like? To the refs it looked like a duck, so it was called a duck.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Penalty Try
Further, if circumstances warrant it:
‘The Referee (or Review Officials) may award a penalty try if, in his opinion, a try would have been scored but for the
unfair play of the defending team. A penalty try is awarded between the goal posts irrespective of where the offence
occurred.’ Section 6 (3) (d)

Infact, Brisbane should have kicked the conversion from right in front. I don't remember if they did or not?

"Unfair play"

Where in the rules does it say kicking the ball out of a player's hands is "unfair"? It certainly doesn't say anything about it in the misconduct section.

 

[drago brelli]

We will know we have a very serious problem if Roberts isn't cited.

 

[Bretto]

Dangerous... Bretto you are kidding right. You would fit right in with the current crop of refs.

Think what you like, buddy. Correct call was made. You cannot strike at the ball with the foot while the player is attempting to score a try. It's in the rules and it's a penalty try. The correct decision was made.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

I mean, if you wanna go on about whether Conrad meant to kick the ball, or was simply trying to get his foot under the ball, you also have to explore the other side of the coin and wonder if he had kicked how he did, but smashed Kahu in the face and broken his jaw, what would we be saying then?

Don't worry about what ifs and maybes, look at the incident. What does it look like? To the refs it looked like a duck, so it was called a duck.

If he'd kicked Kahu the rules would support a penalty and maybe even a penalty try. But he didn't.

 

[Bretto]

"Unfair play"

Where in the rules does it say kicking the ball out of a player's hands is "unfair"? It certainly doesn't say anything about it in the misconduct section.

Honestly, I've tried to find it on Google, but can't seem to. We've been told it's a rule, but I can't find it, that's for sure.

 

[Meth]

Honestly, I've tried to find it on Google, but can't seem to. We've been told it's a rule, but I can't find it, that's for sure.

I tried too

Can someone help with the rule?

 

[POPEYE]

The real question is would the action have been deemed worth 6 points if Boyd had of subconsciously enacted it rather than an accepted nutty professor Hurrell

 

[East Coast Tiger]

If you want to talk about what is in the laws of the game, how about this from the Telstra Premiership laws and interpretations:

"In the event that the on field officials require assistance for a try ruling they will consult the video referee.
Additional responsibilities include the reporting of foul play."


So:

1. The NRL laws don't specifically allow referees to call on the video ref to rule on issues other than tries.
2. Except if it's a case of foul play.

So basically there is nothing specific that says they should have ruled on the knock on at the scrum in the first half and they should have ruled on the Roberts foul play. There is nothing that says the video ref can't rule on foul play from a previous ruck at a try. It was foul play and it related to a try ruling.

 

[Bretto]

Well I'm confused. I always thought the no kicking at the ball rule came in after Slater started decapitating people.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

The real question is would the action have been deemed worth 6 points if Boyd had of subconsciously enacted it rather than an accepted nutty professor Hurrell

The real question is why does a goose who is only interested in the Shield constantly post drivel like this?

Too easy, fishing, shallow end, etc

 

[POPEYE]

Well I'm confused. I always thought the no kicking at the ball rule came in after Slater started decapitating people.

You appear to be confused easily . . . how does a man overrule a supposedly smarter brother sit with you

 

[POPEYE]

The real question is why does a goose who is only interested in the Shield constantly post drivel like this?

Too easy, fishing, shallow end, etc

Too easy

 

[Big Pete]

On the Roberts incident, the bunker can't review anything past the point of the play the ball. They can only review what happened after the play-the-ball was made.

Hurrell deliberately extends his leg with enough force to constitute a kick. It doesn't matter whether he slides in like Slater and it doesn't matter that he didn't make contact with Kahu, you can't kick the ball to prevent the try.

Tough and controversial? Yes. Wrong? No.

 

[rockcod]

I'd love to know what the rule is that makes dislodging the ball with your foot illegal.
The foot rule was brought in to stop players sliding in feet first like Slater used to, but what is the actual rule? Archer just said it was unfair play in a try scoring situation but what makes foot near ball unfair play if its not dangerous?

Its an incredibly soft penalty try and if that is the rule applied correctly then the should change it, I'd be happy to see it be a penalty even, but an automatic penalty try for that is crazy.

 

[Meth]

I'd love to know what the rule is that makes dislodging the ball with your foot illegal.
The foot rule was brought in to stop players sliding in feet first like Slater used to, but what is the actual rule? Archer just said it was unfair play in a try scoring situation but what makes foot near ball unfair play if its not dangerous?

Its an incredibly soft penalty try and if that is the rule applied correctly then the should change it, I'd be happy to see it be a penalty even, but an automatic penalty try for that is crazy.

Yes, exactly

 

[SLRBRONCOS]

Happy with the penalty try, Konrad clearly kicked at the ball, but all we need is a face in the wrong spot and some serious damage.

James Roberts - what a stupid thing to do.