Double movements

[SpaceMonkey]

During the Broncos-Warriors match the broncos had a try disallowed for a double movement. One ofthe commentators made the comment that the rule should be scrapped, that if a player is good enough to get himself into positionto reach out and score he should be entitled to do so. I reckon he has a good point, both Tate yesterday and Brent Webb the previous week did very well to get themselves that close and probably deserved tries. It would also cut down a number of borderline video ref decisions that need to be made. What do you all reckon?

 

[Master Rooster]

100000% agree. if a player is good enough to get the ball over the line (before the referee calls held), then why should he be punished for it?

the double movement rule is stupid and unnecessary!

 

[Edwahu]

If the ref hasn't called held the player should be able to do whatever he can to score.

 

[Jizmizm]

Brent Tate definately deserved that try. THe only real difference to him scoring and not scoring was the ball touching the ground. If he was on his back and rolled over to score, try. The rule is bullsH*t

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Brent Tate definately deserved that try. THe only real difference to him scoring and not scoring was the ball touching the ground. If he was on his back and rolled over to score, try. The rule is bullsH*t

Sazme with Webb the week before, the team put on a brilliant movement to get the ball 70m up-field, but the player cant reach out at the end of it and plant the ball, crazy...

 

[mepelthwack]

Therefore in a 1 on 1 tackle a tackler can strip the ball at any time before a ref calls held?

Is a ref meant to call "held" every single tackle?

Afterall, we need consistency.

I can accept this the way it is. The elbow on the ground and the tackled player is on the ground then no further movement forward allowed. Momentum either still gets them there or it doesn't.

 

[JoeD]

Agree with Spacey. Union is more leniant on double movements and i think league should be the same way.

 

[Nickeel]

They have scrapped the rule already. Didn't you see Simon Woolford's try on Saturday night?

Nick

 

[mickdo]

So a player should be able to just keep crawling forever? Yikes...

 

[SpaceMonkey]

So a player should be able to just keep crawling forever? Yikes...

If he's tacked he can't keep crawling.

 

[Twizzle]

I agree

scrap it

 

[Master Rooster]

So a player should be able to just keep crawling forever? Yikes...

there is something called 'held'

 

[mickdo]

there is something called 'held'

So in that situation, when is 'held' then? Two crawls, or three? If you leave it up to the ref's discretion then next people will be screaming when one ref lets a guy crawl for one metre and score, but not a guy who crawls one and a half to score! It would just move the problem, not solve it IMO.

 

[spider]

They have scrapped the rule already. Didn't you see Simon Woolford's try on Saturday night?Nick

Steve Clarke on the spot - a metre or so bent over looking at - then points to the spot.

Ordinary call - summs up his referring TBH - both ways, not just one sided.

 

[Master Rooster]

So in that situation, when is 'held' then? Two crawls, or three? If you leave it up to the ref's discretion then next people will be screaming when one ref lets a guy crawl for one metre and score, but not a guy who crawls one and a half to score! It would just move the problem, not solve it IMO.

its up to the referees discretion now as well. the guy wont be able to crawl if he is being held in the tackle anyway! the only way he could crawl is if the defenders have dropped off the tackle, and in that case he wouldnt be held

 

[AsPiRiNg YoUtH]

I think it was a try anyway, he always had the momentum with him. Yes he crawled but its not different to the Hunt one a few years ago when he rolled over. Momentum was always there.

However the rule should stay. At least there consistent enough with it. Thats all that matters. And if brent tate would of passes it to boyd, we scored.

Anyway what im more worried about is the amount of forward passes which are not forward. It started with the broncos bulldogs, and yesterday, watch the game and tell me that Hunts pass to stag was fprward. He slowed steadied himself and great pass. Just like the andrew ryan pass. Sure its consistent, but annoying when the pass is not forward. Have they changed the rule to if it floats forward its forward, doesnt matter about the hands?

 

[mxlegend99]

I think it was a try anyway, he always had the momentum with him. Yes he crawled but its not different to the Hunt one a few years ago when he rolled over. Momentum was always there.

However the rule should stay. At least there consistent enough with it. Thats all that matters. And if brent tate would of passes it to boyd, we scored.

Anyway what im more worried about is the amount of forward passes which are not forward. It started with the broncos bulldogs, and yesterday, watch the game and tell me that Hunts pass to stag was fprward. He slowed steadied himself and great pass. Just like the andrew ryan pass. Sure its consistent, but annoying when the pass is not forward. Have they changed the rule to if it floats forward its forward, doesnt matter about the hands?

Word. Some idiot refereeing decision saw Panthers miss out on a fair try against the Souths calling a Rodney pass to Priddis forward. That would've had us ahead too.
How hard is it to rule on a forward pass? And why do they miss real forward passes (re: Utais try yesterday) yet call back lineballs/backward passes?

 

[JoeD]

It should basically be the same rule as everywhere else on the field. A good example is when players are trying to escape the ingoal. players squirm and wriggle and extend the ball into the field of play and because its not a tryscoring situation its not a penalty. Or the situation when a player is held up but on the ground in the in goal. He's allowed to wriggle away and place the ball down if its done in a reasonable amount of time. Also I think that if your body is still going forward with momentum then you should be able to extend your arm.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

It should basically be the same rule as everywhere else on the field. A good example is when players are trying to escape the ingoal. players squirm and wriggle and extend the ball into the field of play and because its not a tryscoring situation its not a penalty. Or the situation when a player is held up but on the ground in the in goal. He's allowed to wriggle away and place the ball down if its done in a reasonable amount of time. Also I think that if your body is still going forward with momentum then you should be able to extend your arm.

Good point. The intent of the rule is ok, but the way it is enforced is way too strict.

 

[lockyno1]

Leave it as it is. If you leave it up to the ref...dear oh me! They are bad enough as it is! Why give them more things to stuff up on!