Grounded or not?

[LazyDreamer]

I'm sure I've seen a couple of instances this year where a player trying to evade the defense & get out of his own in-goal has slipped over, gotten back up, escaped his in-goal (as the slip often does cause the defense to over-run the player) and had the ref call him back & with a wry grin explain, 'Ya grounded it."

Consistency is the issue. But I'm assuming the players are aware of the rule change for this year....at least, I hope they are & that's the reason the Dragons weren't screaming at the ref for a video referral.

 

[Lambretta]

I think you missed the part where I said "he put pressure on the ball".

Good luck picking up a ball without putting pressure on it - or did you mean downward pressure

It was grounded, but the referees ruled correctly because it was not intentional. The idea of the ruling is to promote open attacking Rugby League.

The whole grounding /drop out has been designed to award a team that is attacking with repeat sets if they attack well, not reward them for attacking badly and getting a repeat set from an accident. I understand the logic, but I also agree that it leaves room for another grey area in the game.

 

[Timmah]

Wait for it. Someone to get tackled in-goal. BUT SIR, IT WAS ACCIDENTAL :crazy:

 

[Trentosaurus]

He grounded it and it should have been a drop-out.

BUT... if we were going to stick by the rules then the Dragons could have been penalised for deliberate forward passes to Morris at least once, maybe twice.

Get the grey areas out of the game and shit like this doesn't happen.

 

[aussie7798]

what about this for a hypthetical then ball is grubbered into the ingoal def player dives on top of the ball accidentally grounding it in this process would you think its okay for him to make a run after this because what he was in fact attempting to do was gather the ball not ground it

because im damn sure ive seen that a heap of times this year

 

[adamkungl]

Correct ruling, shit rule.

Whatever, we get rorted every second week and get told to suck it up.

 

[Jason Maher]

I'm sure I've seen a couple of instances this year where a player trying to evade the defense & get out of his own in-goal has slipped over, gotten back up, escaped his in-goal (as the slip often does cause the defense to over-run the player) and had the ref call him back & with a wry grin explain, 'Ya grounded it."

Consistency is the issue. But I'm assuming the players are aware of the rule change for this year....at least, I hope they are & that's the reason the Dragons weren't screaming at the ref for a video referral.

Happened to Chase Stanley in one of our recent games (Cronulla, I think).

In any case, the Roosters player dropped the ball. Should have been a line dropout on that basis.

 

[Cliffhanger]

Correct ruling, shit rule.

Whatever, we get rorted every second week and get told to suck it up.

This!

 

[penny4them2010]

fair call

 

[This Year?]

Not grounded.


Morris was in.

 

[LazyDreamer]

Not grounded.


Morris was in.

Morris was out, but it was an accident, so it's all right.

 

[Kiwi]

Correct - the NRL has said the decision was correct because it was "accidental grounding". I'd say it's time to change the rule & eliminate any grey areas. I don't know how far away the Dragons players were last night but I'd guess more than 20m. What happens if the player slips over when players from the opposition are within 10m, but haven't attempted a tackle ? Can anyone shed any light on when it changes from accidental ?

but what about the fact the grounding of the ball pevented him losing it?

 

[Kiwi]

Correct ruling, shit rule.

Whatever, we get rorted every second week and get told to suck it up.

that's because it's your players rorting the fans

 

[Chook Norris]

but what about the fact the grounding of the ball pevented him losing it?

He had his hand underneath it the entire time. I see no issue

 

[Jubileeboy]

He had his hand underneath it the entire time. I see no issue

lol
Even your very own Professor Brad Fittler stated today on the Sunday Footy Show, (to paraphrase) that by the current laws of the game it would have been deemed to be grounded. If he had spilled the ball and Dragons score, the ref's ruling would have gone back to him grounding it.
Didn't matter as the Dragons played like busteds !

 

[jim007]

It did change the game. Despite their poor performance most of the game the Dragons had the upper hand at that point and probably would have went on to win after a line drop out.

How can a rule be changed like that and no one knows about it until now? There has been 100s of "accidental" groundings since this so called rule change and none have been called that way, until now.

There is only one person who knows if a player accidently grounds a ball and that is the player himself. Any thing else is conjecture. For that reason alone it should have stayed black and white. Ball hits ground, grounded. It would have been called that way if someone ran into the in goal and stripped it to score.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

Why are we still talking about this? He grounded it. The refs missed it, and it's part of a stupid interpretation of the rules that allows far to much grey area (ie: had he then lost the ball and a Dragon dived on it to score the refs would have said the chook grounded it first).

To say that it affected the result is laughable though. Move on.

 

[Ronnie Dobbs]

I agree with Frank.

Saints have bigger issues than the cowards in pink runing their chances.

f**k me. Everyone hates the refs, with good reason.

I'm more concerned as to why Soward gets dropped for Fien and then Fien gets told to play exactly the same.

Bennett brainwashed Saints. Fair Dinkum, its like they're still under a spell. Price is the biggest disciple of all.

Snap out of it Steve.