Ball kicked into the ref = 6 again - why?

[Eels Dude]

I think one of the reasons why the rule is currently the way it is, is to stop players deliberately kicking the ball at the ref when they're coming out from their own end.

The rule is ancient... it comes from the time when League had unlimited tackles, no 10 metre rule, and most importantly still had a contested scrum. Awarding a scrum to the attacking side made sense then cause it was an even contest there were no "sets" so to speak. Unfortunately it's one rule that has slipped through the cracks and not been changed to keep pace with other rule changes around it, probably because it only happens once in a blue moon.

 

[Deacon]

No...it depends which half theyre in...they could miss the pocket ref - he will try and evade it - and the ball ends up in their own half, turnover to the opposition. dumb move

My bad I wasn't aware the attacking side wouldn't get the feed if they did it in their own half even though El Diablo did say this, but surely a the pocket referee wouldn't expect it if you run towards him :lol::lol::lol:

Shame its a rule that's not totally right or wrong either way you look at it

 

[Direct]

That's correct. The reason being that according to the rules the "attacking" side isn't the team with the ball, it's determined by whose half the footy is being played. So if the team in possession of the ball are running it out of their own half, technically they're still the "defence".

I think the rule backdates to when we had unlimited tackles, but it's one of those rules that should have been changed once the 6 tackle limit came in but never has. It's stupid. A side defending shouldn't be punished by having to defend an extra set on their own line simply because the ref got in the way of the ball.

I disagree. There needs to be more rules to promote respect of the referees. You shouldn't be rewarded for kicking a ball into a ref anymore than you should be let off for swearing or spitting at one. It should be a scrum with the feed going to the team without the ball in the set in which the ball was kicked no matter when it is kicked.

 

[aussie7798]

lol all i can think about is players racing around after the refs late in the tackle count trying to get close enough to kick the ball into them

 

[Eels Dude]

I disagree. There needs to be more rules to promote respect of the referees. You shouldn't be rewarded for kicking a ball into a ref anymore than you should be let off for swearing or spitting at one. It should be a scrum with the feed going to the team without the ball in the set in which the ball was kicked no matter when it is kicked.

What do you disagree with exactly? We're talking about when the ball is kicked into the ref accidently and that is all. The rule stands. it doesn't matter whether it is kicked into the ref or he gets in way of a pass during a long range break and it hits him. He has to blow the whistle and have a scrum with the feed given to the 'attacking' side, that's what this discussion is about.

 

[broncos70]

should just be called back to where it was kicked from on the tackle..e.g todays kick was 5th tackle..should bring the ball back and play it as the 5th tackle..or maybe make it 4th tackle because making it the 5th may make the team lose any advantage it had if the defensive line was broken

 

[RL1908]

It's yet another example of why the rule book needs a complete re-write. The entire premise of many of the rules is that scrums & the play-the-ball are contestable.

The problems with the advantage rule we saw earlier this year stem from the same problem - the advantage rule originally was that the non-offending team didn't have to contest a scrum.

Even the idea that an attacking team gets "six again" from successfull chargedowns or when a defender momentarily touches the ball from a dropped/wayward pass or loose carry is a gross over punishment on the defence for doing nothing more than just playing the game.

 

[RedVee]

I'm not in favour of changing rules willy nilly. There has been too much changed in the last 20 years (either my rule or interpretation), can't think of too many things (40/20 maybe) that have been an improvement.
I'm especially not in favour of NRL only rules that takes us away from the International game.

 

[Direct]

What do you disagree with exactly? We're talking about when the ball is kicked into the ref accidently and that is all. The rule stands. it doesn't matter whether it is kicked into the ref or he gets in way of a pass during a long range break and it hits him. He has to blow the whistle and have a scrum with the feed given to the 'attacking' side, that's what this discussion is about.

I disagree with a team kicking the ball getting the ball back for another set after they have kicked it into the ref. Whether it is accidental or not is irrelevant. If the NRL takes the position that the other team gets the feed from the scrum then it is a clear indication to teams that they are to steer clear of the refs.

 

[Eels Dude]

I disagree with a team kicking the ball getting the ball back for another set after they have kicked it into the ref. Whether it is accidental or not is irrelevant. If the NRL takes the position that the other team gets the feed from the scrum then it is a clear indication to teams that they are to steer clear of the refs.

Yeah and I agree with that. But as I said the rule is the way it is because it's out of date. It is a rule based on the days of unlimited tackles, no 10 metres, contested scrums etc.

It should either be play, or called back for a play the ball on the same tackle a la held up in goal.

 

[Serc]

Yeah it sure is out of date - the best i can think of is 'play the ball again'. By the way I was just sharing extra reasons earlier as to why the rule is the way it currently is

 

[RL1908]

Don't forget that it's not just kicking the ball into the ref that invokes this rule - it would also be applied if someone threw the ball backwards and hit the 2nd referee.

 

[Doomednow]

I don't really have too much of a problem with it because it rarely happens. Refs try to get out of the way. I always saw it as an acknowledgement that refs are suposed to remove themselves from the play and if they interrupt it by interfereing with the ball the other team is allowed to continue their attacking push. It would be a pretty hard skill to master kicking accurate enough to hit a mobile referee. Either way I'm indifferent.

Even the idea that an attacking team gets "six again" from successfull chargedowns or when a defender momentarily touches the ball from a dropped/wayward pass or loose carry is a gross over punishment on the defence for doing nothing more than just playing the game.

I have to agree here though, at least with the first part - a successful charge down should not equate a play the ball/knock on. What is the point of even attempting to do it with the ways the rules are? Some of the calls recently where charging players have had a kicked ball bounce off their shoulder - and they have not even played at it - and yet its six again for the kicking side are ridiculous.

However off a pass an intercept attempt should remain risky. If we allow players to fumble whlst trying to break up the opposition's play it will start to look like AFL soon enough.

The problem is I suppose that the game would get too complex if we start distinguishing thats its ok to knock on some specific times, but not others. Something probably needs to be done though.

 

[LazyDreamer]

Yeah and I agree with that. But as I said the rule is the way it is because it's out of date. It is a rule based on the days of unlimited tackles, no 10 metres, contested scrums etc.

...and the days of one ref on the paddock.

 

[Eels Dude]

I have to agree here though, at least with the first part - a successful charge down should not equate a play the ball/knock on. What is the point of even attempting to do it with the ways the rules are? Some of the calls recently where charging players have had a kicked ball bounce off their shoulder - and they have not even played at it - and yet its six again for the kicking side are ridiculous.

I dunno about that. If they didn't play at it fair enough, but if it's a deliberate charge down attempt like the ones Steve Price does it should be six again. There has to be an element of risk involved for the defending side otherwise it would be open slather for charge down attempts.

 

[applesauce]

In reference to coming out of your own half:

Hypothetically what happens if the team kicks it for a 40/20 hits the ref and doesn't get the 40/20 that doesn't seem fair. Obviously no way to tell if the team would of won the 40/20.

I would just like to see it as play on where the ball is, like it would if it hit the posts or a player not playing at the footy. That way it doesn't give an advantage to anyone.

 

[RL1908]

What we are seeing is the same thing gridiron went through - at some point in the game's evolution it changes from a possession-contesting game based on 19th century rugby, into one where "possession is king" - once that happens (as it did with gridiron) you have to take the rugby-based rule book and completely re-write it to reflect the ideals and objectives of the new game.

Gridiron evolved from rugby, but reading their rule book you wouldn't know it now - compare a RL and RU rule book and you won't see much difference between them, but the games are completely different on the field.

I'm not saying RL should change the way the game is played, but the rule book clearly needs a re-write to debate and fix up once and for all these archaic anomalies.

For example, if a ref calls "Held!" just as the player passes the ball, then stop play, give him the ball back, and make him play-the-ball - we do this when a player carrying the ball is injured, so why not for this as well? Otherwise we are left with a grossly exaggerated penalty (because scrums aren't contests) for the so-called "crime" of passing the ball just as the ref called "Held!". The attack got no advantage from the innocent mistake, so why punish them by taking the ball off them and giving it to the other side?

 

[nz eagle]

Just play on, no restart of the tackle count. similar to what happens when it accidently hits a player not playing at the ball.