Ashamed to be a league fan

[jimmythehand]

I think you're off the mark with 1. When Whesser or whoever it was, was pushed back in goals, the referee had already called held so it had to be a penalty (I agree, momentum had stopped)

With Menzies, the referee had not called held so they were entitled to push him back on that basis. The referee, however, should have called held because as soon as a player is lifted and being pushed back, and he has one of his players behind him trying to push him forward, the referee MUST call held. That was a bad error by Simpkins.

With 3. Something had to be done with the old rules. If there's no stripping rule then you'd have 3 players in every tackle, two holding the player while the third attacks the ball. This is what was happening and it was ludicrous - even worse than the current rules. I like the "loose carry" rule. If someone is trying to offload or score a try then the ball should become fair game. They had this at the start of the season but it seems to have disappeared!?!?

 

[The Engineers Room]

That list was a suggestion on rule improvements and improvements on the implementation of some of the current rules. It wasn't an indication that all of the examples in the game were given incorrectly. Most were correct, but it's the rule that is wrong IMO.

So which parts of the body would be included in a knock on?

What happens if the ball hits a player on the head? Knock on?

What about the neck or shoulder? The arms is a good cut off point.

 

[waltzing Meninga]

So which parts of the body would be included in a knock on?

What happens if the ball hits a player on the head? Knock on?

What about the neck or shoulder? The arms is a good cut off point.

I think if it hits any part of the body apart from the leg and goes forward it should be a knock on

 

[Perth Red]

Given that you can score a try with any part of your torso/upper body then either that rule has to change or it has to be a knock on. You can't have it both ways!

 

[waltzing Meninga]

Given that you can score a try with any part of your torso/upper body then either that rule has to change or it has to be a knock on. You can't have it both ways!

no - if you force the ball with your arms or torso its not a knock on. If you knock it forward with any part of the upper body/head it should be a knock on.

 

[Sea_Eagles_Rock]

If the arm is such a good cut off point, why does it always create such technical bullsh*t and endless replays that slow the game down and often the wrong answer is deemed to be made. We have endless discussions on detail that even with today's technology is almost impossible to be certain exactly what part of the body it actually hit. If video ref's are simply looking WHO it touched not what part and where they are going to find making decisions easier... As WM said above, obviously the leg has to be excluded, But I have never seen a person attempt a catch with their feet anyway.

I'm a blues fan and happy to say even if that ball did not touch Hodgson's arm (which I believe it did), it should have been a knock on regardless under the rules. The same goes with the lifting tackle to drive back. Both examples were great tackles and should be rewarded. One was the other was penalised. They were not dangerous... Just bloody good tackles. The game needs to simplify some of these rulings.

Right now, the performance of referees are being put under the spotlight because they are making mistakes. I honestly don't think the officials are as bad as they are made out to be. I believe it is the complexity of the rules are too great. Things need to be simplified a bit.

 

[Iafeta]

Thurstons pass was forward so that cancels out any *offside* you claim Grothe committed...anyway the ptb was on the f**king tryline, how the hell could he be offside, he woulddnt have got the pass if he was, cause it was forward.

No it doesn't.

First infringement is offside. In this instance advantage would be played. An intercept try is no advantage to Queensland.

 

[pennywisealfie]

i think misty bee is a guy??

really? whats with the name misty bee?

 

[Iafeta]

There are a lot of rules that need to be fixed in Rugby League... And most of them were there for all to see last night.

1. Why can't a player be lifted and pushed back into the in goal yet in the normal field of play it's legal?

Yep, I agree. Same with being near the side line. I thought Hodgson's hand was already in touch, but he's effectively beaten the first tackle who's largely gone over the top of him, isn't he still game?

2. Knock on rulings... Does it hit his arm? Who cares? If he plays at it and it goes forward off his body while trying to catch it, it's a knock on. The onus should be take the ball clean.

Exactly. Same with the falcon. It's a reward for mediocrity.

3. Loose carry/ball stripping. If you can't hold the ball, you don't deserve to have it.

Absolutely. You can't tackle around the head, legs (for fearing of lifting tackles), or seemingly the ball because nowadays if a player has no ball security it's more likely the tackler who's made good and accurate contact will be penalised.

4. Offside rule... It's 10m and back with the ref or it's a penalty.

Agree.

5. Play the ball... Play it straight and put your footy on the ball. If you fail either it is an infringement.

Agree, but its one of those rules that they just fade in and out. Two years ago there'd have been 54 penalties in that game probably, these days, referees aren't even caring about it anymore. There was another one they missed where Civinoceva was facing Geelong playing the ball but got away with it. The other one that players are getting away with is coming up holding onto the ball to slow the ruck down, that should be a penalty its so obvious.

6. Offside from a kickoff/drop out. I'm sick to death watching every team in every game commit this basic mistake.

Definitely. Clark actually stood 5 metres in front of halfway for kick offs so he could get down to the other end quicker. It's as if he was cheating his way out of not having enough pace to get there quick enough.

There are more, and what I want to know is when are the rules going to be applied correctly and fixed when it's simply just not possible to apply them correctly all the time? Why are players allowed to infringe some of the rules some times and then not other times?

The ground was very disappointing... I know we got a close match, but the match never delivered a real example of what Rugby League is all about due to the slippery ground.

Well said mate, sooner or later, and it was possibly going to happen last night, poor rule enforcing will cost a team something very important. A top 8 spot, or low and behold, an Origin, Tri Nations or NRL title.

 

[Iafeta]

Not to mention the Mogg try - items of clothing are now not counted if they go in touch. I take it shoes and shouldersare not clothes either?

Anyway, last year they lost and whinged. This year, they won and whinged!

Mogg was clearly in. The ball was down, next frame he was in touch over the sideline. Try.

 

[Iafeta]

no - if you force the ball with your arms or torso its not a knock on. If you knock it forward with any part of the upper body/head it should be a knock on.

Agree. Last night highlighted it as a ruling inconsistency, but regardless, it was right wrist to me anyway.

 

[Iafeta]

So which parts of the body would be included in a knock on?

What happens if the ball hits a player on the head? Knock on?

What about the neck or shoulder? The arms is a good cut off point.

Anything other than an attempted kick propelling the ball forward should be a knock on.

 

[Tank30]

It amazes me how many people want to re-write the rules of this game...Why don't we scrap the rules as they are and let you bunch sit down and write them as you are all so obviously well versed in the rules of the game and what they 'should be' and 'shouldn't be'..

Sheesh the rule says that it is not in any way a knock on if the ball does not touch the hands or arms, therefore Hodgson's try was a try and Thurston's knock on was not a knock on...The video ref got it right and the the on field ref got it wrong.

Anything other than an attempted kick propelling the ball forward should be a knock on.

Who defines whether it is an attempted kick and not just a swing at the ball to negate a knock on...I see a hell of a lot of grey area with this idea..

 

[Iafeta]

I don't. There's calls that already indicate its not too much of a grey area. Example, ball drops onto player's thigh from non normal ball dropping action is deemed a knock on in most cases by referees.

It's got a hell of a lot less grey matter than lower part of the arms. Why should you be rewarded for a falcon? Why should you be rewarded for a chester? This isn't soccer. This game relies on hands and handling skill.

Irrespective, it definitely touched one wrist/forearm if not both. Definite no try.

 

[Tank30]

The ball touched neither arm or hand and a lot of grubber kicks use an unorthodox drop to "disguise" (for want of a better word) the kick from the defence. Under your new rule how would you know...The player is running at the line, drops the ball for a nice little grubber and gets picked up for a knock on...Another player runs to the line and actually drops it but gets a foot to it and it is ruled ok..Still no grey area??

Are you a warriors fan by any chance?

 

[Iafeta]

Less grey area than currently I'm sure. We could sit through 100 different situations and between you and I agree on at least 95% of meant to be kicks, or lost control movements. One would assume last night's incident alone that nearly cost a team Origin sums up the fact that the current rules hold an enormous amount of grey area.

Tell me Tank, why should a player be rewarded for mediocrity which effectively not catching the ball with his hands even though attempting to yet allowing play to go on would reward mediocrity? Forgetting last night's incident, it defies the logics of the game.

In the Warriors Eels game, Evarn Tuimavave got a try because of a poor pass from Nathan Fien. Fien's pass hit Price in the head, Tuimavave reacted and dotted down. Why should that be a try? It was a poor attacking play, the defensive team did nothing wrong. Yet the attacking player's are rewarded. That was ridiculous. Tuimavave did the right thing, he's a smart footballer who knew the rules, half the Parramatta side seemed not to, and they lost out accordingly.

Yes I am a Warriors fan.

Much like any rule, you could apply the "benefit of the doubt" to the attacking side in this instance, provided it comes off the leg. You shouldn't be allowed to chest or head the ball forward without catching the ball before it bounces or hits another defender or another player.

 

[Tank30]

In the Warriors Eels game, Evarn Tuimavave got a try because of a poor pass from Nathan Fien. Fien's pass hit Price in the head, Tuimavave reacted and dotted down. Why should that be a try? It was a poor attacking play, the defensive team did nothing wrong. Yet the attacking player's are rewarded. That was ridiculous. Tuimavave did the right thing, he's a smart footballer who knew the rules, half the Parramatta side seemed not to, and they lost out accordingly.

It should be a try because you would expect, at the very least, that the people playing the game would know the rules. It would appear that Evarn should pop on over to Parra and give a lesson on the rules and how to play to them. I am an Eels fan and was disgusted that we simply stopped playing the ball when it hit Pricey in the head. You obviously knew why I asked about being a Warriors fan

Much like any rule, you could apply the "benefit of the doubt" to the attacking side in this instance, provided it comes off the leg. You shouldn't be allowed to chest or head the ball forward without catching the ball before it bounces or hits another defender or another player.

I agree somewhat, if a player were to intentionally play at the ball with the head or chest it should be called even though it would be technically within the rules...The rule is as grey as the stripping rule..An overhaul is needed but there is never going to be a situation where all of the rules are iron clad, they will always be open to interpretation.

 

[Iafeta]

BTW Tank, regardless of the outcome of the game or the incidents involved, thanks for a good debate nonetheless - good to debate the nitty gritty ins and outs of footy.

 

[Tank30]

Most welcome Iafeta and right back at you...It is good to have a discussion with someone who actually backs up what they are saying with intelligent discussion...

 

[nqboy]

There was no strip. Hodgson knocked on, it hit his left arm. So did Thurston. Thurston's tackle was okay, Hodgson was not held as the other player had fallen off the tackle. Both driving tackles were fine.

West was appalling and so was the touchie on the near side who missed King's cheap shot and Gasnier putting a foot in touch when thrown over in a tackle. Fair dinkum, what WAS he looking at?