Hands on a surrendered player

[innsaneink]

I think it was Mitchell Pearce who picked up Luke Walsh and put him into touch, after he had dropped in a surrender tackle when heading near the touchline....
Rabbits in the call said he'd talked to Tim Mander (dunno his role in the NRL now - think he's on SCG board)..Mander reckoned it was OK as it was all in one motion.
Rule apparently states placing a hand on a prone player deems it a tackle.
Do these clowns make it up as they go along?

 

[sputneek]

Isn't a surrendered tackle a penalty anyway?

 

[Eels Dude]

I had no problem with it, in fact it should happen more often. Refs never call voluntary tackles when they do happen so the rules of the game are being ignored when it comes to these situations in the first place.

 

[franklin2323]

I knew this would come up. It wasn't in 1 movement so usually a penalty. However it was a voluntary tackle so does that give the tackler more room to move? Is there suck are rule or the refs call?

My only concern is what if the player is injured & can't move? Should he be penalised for it?

 

[innsaneink]

Isn't a surrendered tackle a penalty anyway?

Supposed to be, but never ever is.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

I liked the call. If a player is going to surrender to a tackle like that, the defender should have the right to throw him into touch or back into the in goal.

I can see where Sterlo was coming from, but I think in this tackle, there was no initial tackle followed by a second effort my the defender. This was in the one motion.

 

[Tommax25]

If they are fair dinkum about dropping refs who make wrong calls then someones getting dropped. There is almost no such thing as a voluntary tackle, which is why it never gets called. Its a penalty for voluntary tackle when a player just plays the ball with being tackled. What Walsh did is not a voluntary tackle.

And as we all know if a player is on the ground once he is touched he is tackled. What Pearce did was illegal and should have been penalised. If they are consistent a ref will be dropped.

 

[adamkungl]

Walsh got what he deserved

 

[Tommax25]

Walsh got what he deserved

I agree with the sentiment, I don't like seeing players falling to the ground and meekly accepting a tackle, I'm just saying the way the rules are Pearce and the ref were in the wrong, and it should have been a penalty. Would love them to change the rules, but as they stand it was the wrong call. Didn't affect the game though so thats something.

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

Should have been a penalty against Walsh

 

[Tommax25]

:crazy:

 

[innsaneink]

I liked the call. If a player is going to surrender to a tackle like that, the defender should have the right to throw him into touch or back into the in goal.

I can see where Sterlo was coming from, but I think in this tackle, there was no initial tackle followed by a second effort my the defender. This was in the one motion.

I like it too.
But I also like driving at 80km/h in a 60 zone

I also like consistency from refs
Were not getting it. We never do.

 

[Stinkler]

Kade Snowden surrendered in a tackle today for the Knights.
He realised it was an obstruction if he kept going, so he just hit the deck.

The voluntary tackle is dead.

 

[Cupid Stunt]

Take it from the field of play & put it at the try line ie a player dives INTO the field of play like last week. 10 out of 10 times, you pick him up & that's a penalty.


Different rules depending on what part of the field you are in now? Hope not!

 

[franklin2323]

Should have been a penalty against Walsh

I am not arguing. However what if he caught it ingoal and dived in to the field. Then got picked up and put in goal? That's a penalty every time.

So whats the rule? You can't have a different rule for the same thing depending where you are on the field. Either always a penalty or ALL play on

 

[redvscotty]

Tim Mander is running for a seat in my electorate in the QLD election - Everton.

I was thinking this morning I should come home and check out his policies. THanks for reminding me.

(Yes, its the same Tim Mander, I think he finished up video reffing last week or this week)

 

[JoeD]

So whats the rule? You can't have a different rule for the same thing depending where you are on the field. Either always a penalty or ALL play on

The double movement rule is exactly that though. You do what the sharks player did today coming out of your own ingoal and it's play on every time. At the other end of the field and it's no try penalty.

 

[Danish]

Should have been a penalty for a voluntary tackle. As clear cut an example as you could hope for.

As for a different rule coming out of your ingoal compared to elsewhere on the field, that's exactly what we have. You are allowed to dive out of your own ingoal. You are not allowed to do that anywhere else on the field.

 

[Tommax25]

Should have been a penalty for a voluntary tackle. As clear cut an example as you could hope for.

As for a different rule coming out of your ingoal compared to elsewhere on the field, that's exactly what we have. You are allowed to dive out of your own ingoal. You are not allowed to do that anywhere else on the field.

No, it shouldn't hae been. A voluntary tackle is when a player plays the ball without being tackled, not when you hit the deck and invite a tackle. If they want to cut this out of the game they need to change the rule, but as it stands the ref got it wrong.

 

[wibble]

I agree with the sentiment, I don't like seeing players falling to the ground and meekly accepting a tackle, I'm just saying the way the rules are Pearce and the ref were in the wrong, and it should have been a penalty. Would love them to change the rules, but as they stand it was the wrong call. Didn't affect the game though so thats something.

Exactly. If the rules need fixing (and they do in several places because they are too difficult to interpret for referees) then fix them, but the referees job is to enforce the rules as written.

I like it too.
But I also like driving at 80km/h in a 60 zone

I also like consistency from refs
Were not getting it. We never do.

Sad but true.

No, it shouldn't hae been. A voluntary tackle is when a player plays the ball without being tackled, not when you hit the deck and invite a tackle. If they want to cut this out of the game they need to change the rule, but as it stands the ref got it wrong.

True. A voluntary tackle is automatically out of the question if the defender actually tackles the player. It didn't used to be like this, and because the interpretation has changed it is confusing to a lot of fans (like the double movement with momentum interpretation).

The NRL referees "guidelines" (rules shouldn't need guidelines...) say that if the ball carrier gets up you can tackle them, or if they don't you can lay a hand on them and then they are tackled, and if they aren't tackled and play the ball, it is a voluntary tackle (which is stupid, because in any other situation when you have the ball and are not tackled you can roll the ball back between your legs without penalty, but if there are defenders nearby the referee can interpret that as a voluntary tackle).

Here, the defenders put their hands on the player so he was tackled, and the further dragging should have been a penalty. It is stupid, but its the rule and has been applied like that for quite a while.

Last week we had a player dive into the field of play and two defenders waited for the player to get up so they could smash him, and the player waited on the ground so he wouldn't get smashed, and we had a strange stand off where neither side wanted to play. And if the ball carrier had played the ball, then it would have been a voluntary tackle. So how did this joke of a rule get resolved at that time? The referee called the tackle despite the player not being tackled, so the play the ball was allowed! What a farce :crazy: