What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

'16 | R9 | Sat | PEN 19-18 CAN | Bathurst

Round 9: Panthers v Raiders


  • Total voters
    12
  • Poll closed .

Pete Cash

Post Whore
Messages
62,165
A wall requires two or more players the enforcer. He is also in an onside position. He is allowed to stand there.
 

bileduct

Coach
Messages
17,832
He is square and he's the only marker. Notice how his entire body lines up with the attacking player.
If you think he's square then there's absolutely no problem whatsoever with Vaughan and Whitehead then. Thanks for that.

No field goal Panthers. Penalty Raiders. Bunker gets another one wrong.
 

bileduct

Coach
Messages
17,832
Peter Wallace is a metre offside.
Marker isn't even square. He has to line up square to where the player is standing, not the angle he is facing.

Marker stood deliberately to the left of Tapine to get a better run at Sezer.

Penalty Raiders.
 

The Enforcer

Juniors
Messages
1,876
A wall requires two or more players the enforcer. He is also in an onside position. He is allowed to stand there.

I understand that and it's maybe something that needs to be looked at when its obvious what his reasons are for standing there with his hands down. This isn't going anywhere.
 

bileduct

Coach
Messages
17,832
Actually you are right he wasn't square by the standard the panthers fans hold.
Yup, so refs ignored a bunch of penalties that should have been given to the Raiders during both field goal attempts.

Poor officiating all round, really.
 

Pete Cash

Post Whore
Messages
62,165
I understand that and it's maybe something that needs to be looked at when its obvious what his reasons are for standing there with his hands down. This isn't going anywhere.

I'm the most anti obstruction person on this forum and even I don't think there is an issue with a single player standing in an onside position. If he was offside I'd be with you that it's dodgy.

Hell knowing how the raiders play I'm surprised he didn't end up with the ball lol.
 

The Enforcer

Juniors
Messages
1,876
Yup, so refs ignored a bunch of penalties that should have been given to the Raiders during both field goal attempts.

Poor officiating all round, really.

Who's to say that markers may not have been square in some of the tries scored or any lead up plays that led to a try. It can go on forever.
 

Pete Cash

Post Whore
Messages
62,165
Who's to say that markers may not have been square in some of the tries scored or any lead up plays that led to a try. It can go on forever.

I agree.

My issue is mostly the guy in the bunker not knowing the rules rather than scouring the game for injustice. I think on balance Penrith were one point better.
 

nick87

Coach
Messages
12,458
Whitehead not square, so everything after that becomes irrelevant.

Are you simple? A marker not being square isnt an automatic penalty. Why do you think dummy halves run so much?
It's only a penalty if they involve themselves in the play. Whitehead didnt. Vaughan who was square did and was impeded by the an illegal wall. Just f**king stop already:lol::lol:
 

Walt Flanigan

Referee
Messages
20,727
I agree.

My issue is mostly the guy in the bunker not knowing the rules rather than scouring the game for injustice. I think on balance Penrith were one point better.

That is the issue. Penrith were the better side, I won't deny that.

But the fact is the bunker was asked specifically to look at Vaughan being impeded and ignored the fact that he was. It's mind blowing that the guys in the bunker simply do not know the rules.....and this goes for many other cases.
 

papabear

Juniors
Messages
973
Doesn't matter whether he was involved in the play or not, a rule is a rule which you bunch of sooks have been tearing up over regarding the wall. A dummy half might want to run from there but looks up and sees the second marker almost on him because he hasn't lined up square, so he has to change his mind, so he is involving himself in the play. I just had a look at the ladder and it just has genuine points and not claytons points.

rules are rules.

from the NRL rule book
OFFSIDE as applied to a player means that he is temporarily out of
play and may be penalised if he joins in the game (see
Section 14.)

Whitehead didn't join the game.

If two or more players form a wall (side by
side) next to the play-the-ball and don?t allow
the opportunity for a defending player in
possession, the Referee will penalise for
obstruction ? Section 15, Law 1 (j)

You can see more here. http://www.playnrl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ARL-Rules-book-2016.pdf

Oddly enough there is a speed essential rule with the play the ball. which I have never seen enforced, like the voluntary tackle.

If you deliberately don't play the ball to slow it down you are meant to get pinged, I would like to see this called more often, just to keep teams playing fast and not playing to hold on to a lead.
 

Black Magik

Juniors
Messages
914
Geez. I hope I never EVER see Canberra put up a wall (again) when kicking long, bombing or going for the 1 point. That would be against the rules and they never EVER would do that.
 

franklin2323

Immortal
Messages
33,546
Agree, there's so much there that needs to be addressed. Would probably have fallen by the way if we had won.

All those tries went with on field call and were 50/50 at best. Matagi was stripped should of been a drop out. The list goes on. To say it was all one way is just crazy
 

TheFrog

Coach
Messages
14,300
Not marking square is different to offside, but is usually only pinged when such player becomes involved in the play. Segeyaro could have run from dummy half such that the non-square marker tackled him but with the state of the game it probably would not have been penalised. Bunker examinations are different to rulings in general play, and rules not enforced generally can be enforced.

Having said that I think we dodged a bullet with this field goal. I wasn't even aware of the new rule. It would have set a rather poor precedent to deny a team of a point because of a new rule quietly introduced, and which does not appear to have been enforced up until now. A rule that encourages markers to dive for a penalty at that, which I do think was what happened here. I hope and expect we will get a clarification on it this week.

The funny thing is, Penrith didn't need the wall on this occasion. The kicker was far enough back and to the side not to need it.
 
Last edited:

Pete Cash

Post Whore
Messages
62,165
Geez. I hope I never EVER see Canberra put up a wall (again) when kicking long, bombing or going for the 1 point. That would be against the rules and they never EVER would do that.

Canberra will break the rules plenty. That doesnt mean the rules shouldnt be enforced correctly. If we put up a wall for a field goal (the only place this matters) and get penalised id be annoyed because this was let go but it would be the correct interpretation of the rules
 
Top