Can anyone explain to me...

[Dog-E]

..WHY the field goal rule was changed recently, to allow drop-kicks touced in flight - to COUNT as firld goals???

I may well be missing some kind of fuzzy logic here, but - Way i see it - that DECREASES the skill level of koncking over an FG - and therefore the entire game - if ever so slightly - overall!

Filed goals are a fine art, and if you and your team are not good enough to get one off clean - well why the HELL should u get a point for that??...Gay-FL is where u get a point for being ordinary - NOT in Rugby League!...Well...until now, anyway! :S

If a player plays at a ball kicked 'normally' in general play intentiaonally and it goes out - it is treated differently, and it's a scrum against the player that played at the ball...and quite rightly!...What's the diff??

WHAT was the thinking behind this change? What possible purpose does it serve??

GEEEEEEEEZ I REALLY wish they'd stop fluffing about with rules that DON'T need to be changed in the first place!!...And instead - spend a bit more time investigating the answers to the rules that DO need changing!!>..i.e. just for eg - the rule where players have to stay down to get penalties that most often - should have been given instantly to BEGIN with!

Looks like Gorden Tallis was right...as an effective governing body, in touch with the current issues accross Rugby League, and being proactive in implementing the cahanges that count and are REQUIRED - well....at least at the board meetings, the sandwiches are nice, and the drinks are cold!! :lol: :lol:

Not a HUGE deal in the scheme of things, I realise that...but just - a VERY strange rule to tinker with!...WHY?

 

[Dogs Of War]

Geez, if it still goes over after being touched in flight it is damn lucky.

Anyway, I don't think that rule is bad at all. Has been in for at least 3-4 seasons now and it's taken you this long to complain?

 

[Thunderstruck]

Let's see. You kick a 40/20, the ball bounces off behind the 20, opposition player managed to get a hand on the ball but loses it over the sideline. Result? Scrum to the attacking team, same as if it wasn't touched. Actually happened a few weeks ago at a Storm game. It was Jake Webster who lost the ball, but I forgot who we played, I think it was the Panthers.

I dont' see the problem with the ball being touched mid-flight and still makes it. It just means they haven't done enough to stop the ball from going over.

 

[NPK]

It's easier for the ref that way...otherwise there will be players wingeing that they touched the ball after every field goal and it would be really messy.

 

[nqboy]

Re NPK's post, I think that actually happened a few seasons ago, didn't it? The video ref, despite innumerable replays, couldn't decide whether one of the chasers got a touch on the ball or not, so they changed the rule to fix the problem.

 

[Twizzle]

its very difficult to determine whether the ball has been touched or not, this will just make the refs job a little bit easier

 

[Rammo]

WHO CARES, there are much more important things in the game than a silly little rule like this, it is the same for both teams so who really gives a damn.

 

[Dog-E]

It's actually a very recent rule change...in the last 1-2 seasons - it is NOT 3-4 years old - I am 99% sure of it!!

My point was - why change these kind of almost 'inconsequential' rules...for no apprent reason (Ok, so it makes the ref's job sliiiightly easier - tho with video refs - we shouldn't even be concerning ourselves with that!)...And leave the rules that clearly DO need changing - the rules that are deciding games because of their ambiguity and stupidity - almost every week!

WHY can't the video ref call on a forward pass when making a decision for e.g? WHY?...Makes no sense, and THAT's the kind of controversial moment that you DON'T want to se a GranD Final or important finals match decidedd nupon!...Hell, I dont wanna see ANY game decided on a duff call - if I win a game...I want my team to have won the bugger FAIR 'N SQUARE!!

And Rammo - if you have more important things to talk about - well, I have yet to see them - making sh!t up about Panthers fans moaning the other night (Which they weren't!) does NOT count - but if you feel you DO indeed have such things to talk about...then please do so. Away from this thread.

 

[Misty Bee]

Last minute of a grand final. Snap drop goal from 40m out. Sails over, but because it was touched in flight - no goal. Why? Because someone got a hand to it? So friggin what?

Nothing wrong with tinkering the rules to make the game better - even if it is a minor ajustment.

 

[Dog-E]

Well that's where u & I disagree Misty bee!!

I was a field goal WHIZ in my playing days - even if I do say so meself - it's a precise art that requires good nerve, confidence and good speed of thought and body - And I just see no reason to reward mediocrity...Absolutely none whatsoever.

If that was the rule all along - well, then sobeit - but it wasn't - and IMO there was just NO good reason to change it!!...That I have heard yet, anyway!

 

[Vicious]

The rule that should be changed is getting 6 again for a charge down if the side who kicked the ball regathers it. It`s crap, if the defending side is good enough to charge down a kick they should be rewarded regardless of if they get the ball or not?

 

[joejoe]

I agree, its easier for the ref.

 

[Greenblooded]

The rule changed at least 4 years ago, I remember Ridge getting suspended for grabbing the ref and arguing about it after the rule had changed.

 

[Striker]

The rule that should be changed is getting 6 again for a charge down if the side who kicked the ball regathers it. It`s crap, if the defending side is good enough to charge down a kick they should be rewarded regardless of if they get the ball or not?

No way, you play at the football attempting a charge down and dont get the football, stiff... you made that risk charging it down.

personally the only rule i hate is the 40-20. if team a kicks the ball out, team b feeds the scrum. defensive teams are getting punished for big kicks, field position should be enough. too many 'new' rules these days favour the attacking team.

 

[Trollhammaren]

I think it's been in the rules since at least 1998. I remember an incident in a game between Balmain v Auckland at Leichhardt when Ben Duckworth kicked a field-goal despite it being touched in flight. Fairly sure the rule was in place then.

 

[Dog-E]

The rule changed at least 4 years ago, I remember Ridge getting suspended for grabbing the ref and arguing about it after the rule had changed.

Well, ok - if that IS indeed the case then - I stand corrected!

I STILL really & truly don;t thtink that IS the case, though!!! But I have no hardcore evidence to prove it...nor can I be arsed looking for any...

I just CANNOT remember it even being an issue until recently...the Ch.9 commentary crew have made NUMEROUS recent references to 'the recently changed rule' when players are shooting for FG's. Braith anasta's snap on hallftime on Friday which was HEAVILY deflected...and STILL nearly went over, just raised this question in my head again!...If he'd have scored that point...he'd have just about been EMBARRASSED to do so!! :lol:

My point STILL stands - which no-one has even addressed here - as well, however - WHY DON'T they have a look at some of these controversial rules that MATTER and have a FAR greater propensity to change the result of a game week-in and wek-out!!?!?

Why?

 

[Misty Bee]

Dog-E, who says it's awarding mediocrity? You assume that the field goal wuold be going out unless touched. What if it's a pearler, and scrapes teh fingernail of a loaf just having a pot shot?

Cast your mind back to a moment that would thrill you and pain me: the 80th minute of the '98 prelimfinal. Numbnuts Cariage does his kick, into the arms of Polly on halfway, who takes the shot from halfway. The ball sails over the black dot, putting the Dongs in the GF. However, the ref blows his wistle - Hindy got a fingernail to it. No goal.

FAIR?

 

[Dog-E]

Dog-E, who says it's awarding mediocrity? You assume that the field goal wuold be going out unless touched. What if it's a pearler, and scrapes teh fingernail of a loaf just having a pot shot?

Cast your mind back to a moment that would thrill you and pain me: the 80th minute of the '98 prelimfinal. Numbnuts Carrge does his kick, into the arms of Polly on halfway, who takes the shot from halfway. The ball sails over the black dot, putting the Dongs in the GF. However, the ref blows his wistle - Hindy got a fingernail to it. No goal.

FAIR?

Well if Polly did not get that one off clean...then yeah - fair enough!...QUITE honestly!

And I am SURE he would say the same, what's more!

As it was, it WASN'T touched, and shaved a coat off the underside of the corssbar!

Would have been the FG of the DECADE otherwise!

It just takes AWAy a smidgin of the skill required in Rugby League!...Wehreas the 40/20 rule ENCOURAGES positive, attacking play...and if a player charges down a kick - thus displying no confidsence in his fullback/wingers to bring the ball back & make metres IN BROKEN PLAY (Which is the most dangerous and exciting type of play there is!...And I can still say this with NO bias, as a former fullback! ;-) ) - then that is hIS call...if he gets it wrong - that is quite simply a poor decision on his part!

And that is my HONEST, unbisaed opinion!

 

[salivor]

I don't see the big deal, it is just as much the defensive teams responsibility to stop the field goal as it is the attacking players to get it off cleanly. If they can't stop the kick from going over, even by deflecting it then they don't deserve to be sparred the one point.