Konrad, Kahu and the kick

[The Mad Hatter]

...

My only issue about this is that it took until the finals. There have been half a dozen penalty tries that should have been awarded this season

And yet it's Brisbane that benefit from this magic turn around in decision making.

Fortuitous. And typical.

 

[Meth]

Pigs fly too. You don't use a kicking motion to put your legs under the ball

Haha it's hardly implausible that that's exactly what he was trying to do.

Perhaps he really wasn't thinking about doing one or the other...he was just doing something to try to stop the try being scored.

How do any of us know?

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Pigs fly too. You don't use a kicking motion to put your legs under the ball.

Correct. Kicking motions should be reserved for the backs of opposition players.

 

[lockyno1]

Correct. Kicking motions should be reserved for the backs of opposition players.

I would have had no issue with Roberts being sent off. It was dangerous and dumb!

 

[Meth]

Is there any sense of foul play needing to be intentional/cynical for a penalty try to be awarded? If Hurrell could claim to have been trying to do something legitimate, is the penalty try still warranted?

 

[Bretto]

How do you know?

Because I have eyes and I use them.

 

[Bretto]

Well yes and they are 100% sure that Kahu would have scored it without Hurrell there.

I thought he tried to position his legs so that it would keep Kahu from actually grounding the ball.
Hurrell's feet and Kahu's head were nowhere near each other.
They need to clarify this rule a bit more.

"You cannot kick at the ball in any way when an attacking player is attempting to score a try"

The rule is clear.

 

[ghostface]

NO try, That hasn't been a try in 100 years of the game being played. The exact same thing happened in the 20's game and it was ruled to be no try, the difference the refs had common sense in the 20's game.

 

[Bretto]

Is there any sense of foul play needing to be intentional/cynical for a penalty try to be awarded? If Hurrell could claim to have been trying to do something legitimate, is the penalty try still warranted?

Yes. What did it look like?

Occam's razor
ˈɒkəmz/
noun
unpunctuated: Occams razor; noun: Occam's razor; noun: Ockham's razor

1. the principle (attributed to William of Occam) that in explaining a thing no more assumptions should be made than are necessary. The principle is often invoked to defend reductionism or nominalism.

 

[Meth]

Because I have eyes and I use them.

Wow you have eyes that can see into Hurrell's mind?

 

[Bretto]

NO try, That hasn't been a try in 100 years of the game being played. The exact same thing happened in the 20's game and it was ruled to be no try, the difference the refs had common sense in the 20's game.

If the exact same thing happened in the U20's game and was given no try, then the U20's refs got the decision wrong. The rule is very clear. Peoples ability to interpret the rule in an objective and reasonable manner however, is not.

 

[user_nat]

NO try, That hasn't been a try in 100 years of the game being played. The exact same thing happened in the 20's game and it was ruled to be no try, the difference the refs had common sense in the 20's game.

You are correct that it wouldn't be a try for the first 100 years of the game. But from Slater sliding tackle in 2008 onwards it has been fairly clear cut try. Just doesn't come up very often.

 

[applesauce]

Wow you have eyes that can see into Hurrell's mind?

I can tell that not a lot is going on in your mind.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

"You cannot kick at the ball in any way when an attacking player is attempting to score a try"

The rule is clear.

What rule? I don't know what you've quoted but that is not a rule in the laws of the game.

 

[Pete Cash]

I personally think defenders should be able to defend the line however they want within reason. I feel that what hurrell did was not dangerous and was just good old fashion effort

However rules are rules and the current nrl interpretation says penalty try. So the right decision was made.,

 

[Meth]

I can tell that not a lot is going on in your mind.

Brilliant banter.

Nuance is all a bit much for some people eh

 

[Bretto]

What rule? I don't know what you've quoted but that is not a rule in the laws of the game.

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?

 

[ghostface]

deleted

 

[Meth]

"You cannot kick at the ball in any way when an attacking player is attempting to score a try"

The rule is clear.

You can lodge your foot under the ball, but you can't move your leg to get your foot under the ball.

Right

 

[ghostface]

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?

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