Widdop "Try"

[_Johnsy]

I get that decisions are viewed as "supporting" one team and "penalising" another, and become part of the banter that fans sledge each other with. I like a good lol@Manly as much as anyone, and I thought The Mad Hatter's anecdote was very funny, but....







... none of the banter, or serious support for the decision, actually gets to the crux of the problem. Take the teams out of the context, are we really happy that things that happen to affect a marker (who by definition is getting in place for the upcoming play, not hanging around from the previous play) are not examinable if they happen before the play the ball? That seems a ludicrous position from the NRL.

Taking the teams out of the scenario doesn't change a thing. If DCE hadn't decided to initiate contact, this thread wouldn't exist.

 

[Life's Good]

My grandfather is 97. Worked hard, raised a family, paid his taxes, fought in WWII.

He is half blind and a one eyed Saints supporter.

He's a gentleman through and through.

Even he said "f**k Manly".

Has he spoken to you since you told him you support lol@Souffs

(BTW he sounds like the bloke I think of when I hear the anthem-good bloke).

 

[Joeboy]

I can see both sides of this argument.. But.

If manly are playing the ball and st George have two markers, why is nightingale running towards the play the ball? Surely he is offside before any contact?

Any teams fans would be pissed if it happened to them, bias for and against does things to ones objectivity.

In the record books now, doesn't really matter, it's just the constant ringing of the hands by the powers that be, rather than any accountability or targeted improvements.

 

[thorson1987]

Hi can see both sides of this argument.. But.

If manly are playing the ball and st George have two markets, why is nightingale running towards the play the ball? Surely he is offside before any contact?

He was near where the tackle was made and was running back to his position on the wing.

 

[wibble]

Taking the teams out of the scenario doesn't change a thing. If DCE hadn't decided to initiate contact, this thread wouldn't exist.

So that is the reason the try was denied was it?

The bunker looked at the incident, said DCE initiated contact, and therefore no try?

 

[Slackboy72]

Ri


So that is the reason the try was denied was it?

The bunker looked at the incident, said DCE initiated contact, and therefore no try?

No. They didn't even look at that.
They can only look at the moment the ball is played onwards.
Same as if someone strips a ball illegally, runs way down field and scores. Video ref can look at the strip.
If they get tackled and the next play the dummy half scores, the VR can't go back and look at the strip.
That's a limitation on the jurisdiction of the VR that the clubs have agreed to. It comes up every year because we see blatant knock ons in lead up plays to tries that get missed on-field that the VR can't rule on because they were on a previous play of the ball.

As to Nightingale and DCE tangling, technically I believe DCE is at fault because he is in an offside position and impedes a defensive player by grabbing him. Nightingale is also in an offside position but was not trying to tackle a ball carrier.
DCE was offside at the moment of the play of the ball and therefore he would remain offside for the entirety of that play regardless of whether he tried to return onside or another member of his team made him onside. I think under the rules he would not even be allowed to go back and pick the ball up.
I can't recall where we've seen this before but someone has been penalised for getting the ball in a play even though they were returning onside when the ball was played.
The rule changed, in 2011 I believe, to stop forwards drifting offside on last tackle plays where they knew the ball was going to be kicked downfield.

 

[Maximus]

I've looked at again
Nightingale was lucky to get away with that.
I think the first collision was accidental by both players.
Then nightingale holds DCE back

So you missed the part where DCE shoved Nightingale? Or are you saying he was just shoving air and Nightingale accidentally got in the way?

If manly are playing the ball and st George have two markers, why is nightingale running towards the play the ball? Surely he is offside before any contact?

Nightingale wasn't. He was chasing the kick along with the 2 who made the tackle, he was on the inside, then when the tackle was made, he turned and ran towards to wing to get in the defensive line. It was on the turn towards the wing that they collided.

 

[carcharias]

So you missed the part where DCE shoved Nightingale? Or are you saying he was just shoving air and Nightingale accidentally got in the way?



Nightingale wasn't. He was chasing the kick along with the 2 who made the tackle, he was on the inside, then when the tackle was made, he turned and ran towards to wing to get in the defensive line. It was on the turn towards the wing that they collided.

I missed nothing
I saw two blokes run into each other
Then they both push a bit
Then nightingale clearly holds DCE back from getting position
He may not have even got there
But he was held back
Normally that's a penalty

 

[Life's Good]

35-10. End thread

 

[wibble]

No. They didn't even look at that.
They can only look at the moment the ball is played onwards....

...I can't recall where we've seen this before but someone has been penalised for getting the ball in a play even though they were returning onside when the ball was played.
The rule changed, in 2011 I believe, to stop forwards drifting offside on last tackle plays where they knew the ball was going to be kicked downfield.

I'm not sure the downtown rule is meant for this situation, forwards come back onside from in front of the play the ball every set, and then get involved.

But yes, my point is that they can only look at the moment the ball is played onwards, and how silly is that? Johnsy decided to quote part of my post and completely miss that point.

Ikin on 360 launched a defense of that, that a line has to be drawn somewhere, we can't have grey areas, and your argument (not that you were specifically defending this stance) is that clubs want that. At least there are two arguments now for why the bunker couldn't look at it, in 4 pages of dribble.

There is no such thing as a "black and white" rule, there is always judgement, which is subjective. I appreciate the effort to strive for objectivity, and having the "play the ball" as the moment we go back to helps strive for that, but I still think it is unsatisfying.

If a ball is lost in the play the ball, can the bunker rule on that? Is it yes if the ball is lost after passing the legs, but no if before? What if it dribbles out sideways? There are any number of shades of grey you can have in a given situation.

I don't see why getting in to position for a play the ball is considered part of the previous play. If the previous play was still going, no one would be moving in to position for a play the ball. The ball passing the legs is not a logical cut off point for me, just a convenient one. And it is open to exploitation, as I suggested, if we have a "bunker free zone" after a tackle, before a play the ball.

 

[Danish]

DCE was offside at the moment of the play of the ball and therefore he would remain offside for the entirety of that play regardless of whether he tried to return onside or another member of his team made him onside. I think under the rules he would not even be allowed to go back and pick the ball up.
I can't recall where we've seen this before but someone has been penalised for getting the ball in a play even though they were returning onside when the ball was played.
The rule changed, in 2011 I believe, to stop forwards drifting offside on last tackle plays where they knew the ball was going to be kicked downfield.

This is a very good point.

A player who is in front of the play the ball when it is played is actually deemed "out of play", and not "offside". The difference between the 2 being that an offside player can actually be put back onside that play, whereas an Out of Play player must wait till the next play the ball to get involved.

You don't generally see this penalised often, as the situation does not come up that much.

I do recall however my roosters being pinged correctly for this I think back in 2009. We fielded a kick and got tackled, then on the next play made a line break and one of the forwards who was still just wandering back from upfield joined in on the play and got penalised. It was particularly annoying as there were plenty of onside players in support as well so if the dope had just stayed out of it we probably score (the 2009 Roosters never failed to invent new ways of f**king up).

That is the primary way where you'll see an out of play player getting penalised. Someone running back to jump on a loose ball at dummy half should technically be pinged too, but I doubt thats ever happened

 

[LazyDreamer]

... none of the banter, or serious support for the decision, actually gets to the crux of the problem. Take the teams out of the context, are we really happy that things that happen to affect a marker (who by definition is getting in place for the upcoming play, not hanging around from the previous play) are not examinable if they happen before the play the ball? That seems a ludicrous position from the NRL.

I assume by 'marker' you mean in this case 'dummy half'?

In any case, DCE was nowhere in position to even be considered dummy half, regardless of who grabbed who. Bit different if he's grabbed, pushed or knocked as he's getting to the ruck but seriously, he was a mile away and there were other Manly players in far better position to pick up that ball. Not the refs', bunker's, or Nightingale's fault if DCE called dibs when he was in the worst position to do so.

DCE obviously learned nothing from Jamie Lyon too. Doesn't he know the proper way after you instigate something and the other player lays a hand on you is to throw your arms out while screaming to the ref, then falling to the ground for maximum effect?

 

[muzby]

Morris was in.

 

[carcharias]

Morris was in.

Nathan brown was marker

 

[muzby]

Possibly the only thing that could make this situation any more delicious would be if we finish equal 8th with Manly, and we knock them out of 8th place based on a for and against of less than 8 points..

Or even bumping Cronulla out of the finals based on a deferential of less than 4 points..

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Possibly the only thing that could make this situation any more delicious would be if we finish equal 8th with Manly, and we knock them out of 8th place based on a for and against of less than 8 points..

Or even bumping Cronulla out of the finals based on a deferential of less than 4 points..

 

[kbw]

I didn't think Widdup was square
The replay I saw had me thinking DCE was taking nightingale out more than the other way round.

 

[carcharias]

Possibly the only thing that could make this situation any more delicious would be if we finish equal 8th with Manly, and we knock them out of 8th place based on a for and against of less than 8 points..

Or even bumping Cronulla out of the finals based on a deferential of less than 4 points..

Ha
Dragons fans are getting excited.
Nothing better in rugby league than the Dragons fans buying grand final tickets in April and then watching them lose their shit when the team capitulates in the real games.
Sack Mary
Hire Mary
Sack doust
Hire doust
We need Dugan
We hate Dugan

 

[Owen Da Saints]

Morris was in.

Damn ! You beat me to it !

 

[muzby]

Ha
Dragons fans are getting excited.
Nothing better in rugby league than the Dragons fans buying grand final tickets in April and then watching them lose their shit when the team capitulates in the real games.
Sack Mary
Hire Mary
Sack doust
Hire doust
We need Dugan
We hate Dugan

Steady on tiger.. Here I am talking about just making the 8th on for & against, and you've got us in the grand final already..