Feki's try

[Poolshark]

His heel was on the line. therefore that foot is still deemed out. It has to be raised again and placed in the field of play again to be deemed as having entered the field of play.

I will agree that it is something that needs to be changed, as its one of the old rules which was most likely invented to stop players who would kick and run out of the field of play and then score a try by diving on the ball from outside the field of play.

Make it simpler, if you are in the field of play while touching the ball, then you are in.

Re-entering the field of play is just a complication of a rule that could be simpler.

Exactly the point I was trying to make. The game of rugby league is a simple one. However those in charge over a number of years now have screwed with rules that served the game well for so long. I will admit there have been issues in the game that needed to be addressed, but if you look at the rule changes that have been implemented most have created more problems than solved.

 

[Poolshark]

If that Shaun Johnson pass stuck and didn't go into touch, and the Warriors clinched it, my opinion would be the same. It's the laws of the game. It may be a stupid rule, but it is what it is (and I don't want the NRL to come along and change it for the sake of changing it).

I would focus my criticism of letting the Warriors back in the game. We struggle with teams that through the ball around with purpose and forward momentum (Panthers side to side rubbish doesn't). The Broncos did it to us, the warriors did, and in the past Manly and Melbourne have both clinched games in the dying moments because of it.

It's something we need to work on.

Well I would suggest you would be the in the minority Frailty. And that stupid rule was changed to be in it's current form, so why not just leave it as it was. Everyone knew what the rule was previously and had served us well. Now we have a more complex situation that almost requires a degree in physics to work out. :crazy:

 

[Since 73]

I was happy with the no try call.

My cat wasn't

 

[Poss]

My cat wasn't

There was only a whisker in it

 

[Pommez]

Feki's try was 100% a try his toe was inside the line after his heel had lifted up

 

[Frailty]

Well I would suggest you would be the in the minority Frailty. And that stupid rule was changed to be in it's current form, so why not just leave it as it was. Everyone knew what the rule was previously and had served us well. Now we have a more complex situation that almost requires a degree in physics to work out. :crazy:

The rule has not been changed, and has always been if you jump from outside the field of play and make contact with the ball you have made the ball 'in touch'. This has always been the rule to prevent people from leaving the field of play and then diving in from outside the field of play.

 

[Surely]

That's alright provided you aren't grounded in the field of play when you make contact with theball.

It should be simple you are in or you are out

If diving to ground a ball im the in goal and your foot touches the line before you dive on the ball and ground it, is it a no try ?

 

[Feej]

You can bet that if the NRL changed the rule that someone (probably the Storm) would exploit it the way it was previously.

It was no try - Leave it be.

 

[Poolshark]

The rule has not been changed, and has always been if you jump from outside the field of play and make contact with the ball you have made the ball 'in touch'. This has always been the rule to prevent people from leaving the field of play and then diving in from outside the field of play.

So you would claim the try Matt Rogers scored for us many years ago was ruled a try under the same interpretation?

 

[Frailty]

So you would claim the try Matt Rogers scored for us many years ago was ruled a try under the same interpretation?

I can remember the one you're referring to, but would love to see footage of it again to answer the question.

However, it should be noted that it is not beyond possibilities that we may have benefitted from a incorrect decision.

 

[Frailty]

You referring to this try at the 35 second mark in this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eY_mjoJu8U

He clearly re-enters the field of play.

 

[carcharias]

You referring to this try at the 35 second mark in this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eY_mjoJu8U

He clearly re-enters the field of play.

geeze that makes me sort of sad that video.

I was at many of those games.
That sharks v dragons game was that round 1 double header at the Olympic stadium I think.
My dumb arse mate decided a 35 dg day was as good a time as any to drop acid.
Needless to say he had a fairly average day.

 

[Poolshark]

You referring to this try at the 35 second mark in this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eY_mjoJu8U

He clearly re-enters the field of play.

I believe this one was a no try because a forward pass was ruled, but there was a try Rogers scored in a similar fashion. But we can use this as an example because of your use of the word "clearly". The replay shows in my opinion a "clear" view of Feki's foot being in the field of play when he connected with the ball. The on field referee ruled a try so in my opinion there was no need to over rule that decision. To keep it simple if you are in the field of play when contact is made then, no brainer, you're in the field of play. If you touch the ball out of the field of play you're out. No grey area, plain and simple, just like the game used to be. And just for the record at the time I was thinking, "well we are up by 14, so I will live with the decision". But 5 minutes from full time I was thinking how that decision may have cost us the game to the point I didn't put myself through the inevitable heart stopping finish and stopped watching. Anyway we could go back and forth on this one but I have had my say and happy to leave it at that, and take on board your views and respect that.

 

[Poolshark]

I can remember the one you're referring to, but would love to see footage of it again to answer the question.

However, it should be noted that it is not beyond possibilities that we may have benefitted from a incorrect decision.

Oh and one other thing, your are right with this. Because I thought Fifita was offside when he gathered that ball.

 

[Frailty]

I believe this one was a no try because a forward pass was ruled, but there was a try Rogers scored in a similar fashion. But we can use this as an example because of your use of the word "clearly". The replay shows in my opinion a "clear" view of Feki's foot being in the field of play when he connected with the ball. The on field referee ruled a try so in my opinion there was no need to over rule that decision. To keep it simple if you are in the field of play when contact is made then, no brainer, you're in the field of play. If you touch the ball out of the field of play you're out. No grey area, plain and simple, just like the game used to be. And just for the record at the time I was thinking, "well we are up by 14, so I will live with the decision". But 5 minutes from full time I was thinking how that decision may have cost us the game to the point I didn't put myself through the inevitable heart stopping finish and stopped watching. Anyway we could go back and forth on this one but I have had my say and happy to leave it at that, and take on board your views and respect that.

Feki's last contact with the ground was on the touchline, and thus by touching the ball he made it out of play. Just like if the ball was going out and he jumped from the field of play to knock it back in the ball would still be in play.

Your suggested rule change would remove clarity all together by using an imaginary border in the air rather than a fixed and clear line and ground contact.

I understand the frustration because it is such as a technical rule (which rarely comes up as an issue), but any change I fear would make it more open for interpretation of the referees (and thus more errors).

 

[Frailty]

Oh and one other thing, your are right with this. Because I thought Fifita was offside when he gathered that ball.

I thought we was slightly in front but wasn't definite, but thought poms pass went forward (which hit the ground making it a knock on, and thus able to be ruled by the video ref).

Either way we got the win, on what is a tough trip across the ditch.

 

[Crikey!!!!]

No.

Because his foot touched the line, it is still deemed as being out until it enters the field, regardless of whether he lifted his heel or not.

The right decision was made, his foot never re-entered the field.

technical rule...
isn't by lifting his heel he has now entered?
or does he physically have to lift his whole foot and re plant it.

forget all the muppets about jumping from outside to in .

 

[wibble]

Feki's last contact with the ground was on the touchline, and thus by touching the ball he made it out of play. Just like if the ball was going out and he jumped from the field of play to knock it back in the ball would still be in play.

Your suggested rule change would remove clarity all together by using an imaginary border in the air rather than a fixed and clear line and ground contact.

I understand the frustration because it is such as a technical rule (which rarely comes up as an issue), but any change I fear would make it more open for interpretation of the referees (and thus more errors).

The difficulty people are having with the no try ruling is not related to this.

We all accept that if you leap from out of the field and don't land in field first, it is no try.

Your claim that Feki's last contact with the ground is on the touchline is the part some are disputing, and Madunit has explained that even though the foot may have dragged off the line, or lifted off the line where it touched, it is still in touch until it is lifted again and planted fully in the field.

If this is the rule (can anyone confirm that lifting part of the foot off the line so it is no longer touching, and/or dragging the foot along the ground off the line really doen't put that foot back in the field?), then clearly it is no try, but the rule is certainly then counter intuitive, overly complex, and leaves the game open to some silly but probably difficult to achieve situations where a player is clearly on the ground, in the field, maybe even by metres, but is still technically deemed to be in touch.

 

[Stinkler]

technical rule...
isn't by lifting his heel he has now entered?
or does he physically have to lift his whole foot and re plant it.

forget all the muppets about jumping from outside to in .

Very difficult to run flat footed.
The natural motion of running ensures the heel lifts of the ground, and you push off with your toes and ball of the foot.

The heel was clearly off the ground, and as such his foot was not touching the line.

But as you say, do you need to lift your entire foot to be back in the field of play?


Law 9.1 states:
The ball is in touch if a player jumps from touch and while off the ground touches the ball.


http://www.nrl.com/portals/nrl/RadEditor/Documents/NRL Rules book 2013FINAL.pdf

 

[RUBIKS]

Question: Receiving the kickoff. You put your foot out and catch the ball. The kick is considered too long. Is this the same result if you just touch it? As in you fumble the catch?