If a player throws a ball deliberately into another player there will be a penalty

[_Johnsy]

I'm split. Had Jackson made some effort to move to the side of the ruck, no probs penalty every day of the week.

McInnes only has himself to blame, he tried to be too smart and obviously deliberately threw the ball into Jackson, tough penalty but I can cop it.

Easy enough to make a fair argument either way, but the NRL have made a dogs breakfast out of this rule.

A 50/50 call if I've ever seen one, and no I didn't mention Jarrod Croiker.

 

[no name]

The only way McInnes can get the ball to Hunt is by lifting the pass up over Jackson.
This disadvantages the Dragons straight away as the quickest way to get the ball to Hunt is passing directly off the ground, which McInnes does.
It should have been penalty Dragons straight up because Jackson made no effort whatsoever to clear the ruck or get out of the way of the play.

McInnes is a bit of a dope for passing it into him, but the rule is shit.
As said earlier, teams will start planting players on either side of the ruck with their hands up.

 

[JamesRustle]

First infringement was not clearing the ruck. Penalty Dragons.

From memory, McInness didn't even look up at Jackson, didn't double pump the pass, so not sure how it was deliberate.

Anyway, this was an inevitable outcome they way NRL has handled it.

 

[LineBall]

Yep, should have been penalty Dragons for Jackson making no attempt to clear the ruck.

 

[Burwood]

McInnes is a bit of a dope for passing it into him, but the rule is shit.
As said earlier, teams will start planting players on either side of the ruck with their hands up.

So hypothetically, will these two players be in addition to the two markers, or will coaches be instructing their players to have no markers and instead lay around the play the ball in the hope of earning a penalty?

To me, it is no different to when the dummy half deliberately runs at a player retreating the 10m to get back on side. If the defender is taking no action to tackle or impede the player, play on.

Likewise, if the player laying around the ruck makes themself a small target and is completely stationary, then so be it- play on.

 

[typicalfan]

The NRL created this. Can’t wait for this to appear again in a semi final what a great rule

 

[billygilmore]

I hope this rule costs us the origin series so I can blame the refs instead of admitting the blues were better

 

[no name]

So hypothetically, will these two players be in addition to the two markers, or will coaches be instructing their players to have no markers and instead lay around the play the ball in the hope of earning a penalty?

To me, it is no different to when the dummy half deliberately runs at a player retreating the 10m to get back on side. If the defender is taking no action to tackle or impede the player, play on.

Likewise, if the player laying around the ruck makes themself a small target and is completely stationary, then so be it- play on.

I was being facetious about planting players in the ruck.

As for the last statement, the small target that Jackson made himself just happened to be right in between the player with the ball and the intended receiver.
The Dragons won the ruck which left Jackson on the ground and in the way.
It's absurd that they got no advantage whatsoever and would have had to disadvantage themselves to even keep the ball.

 

[Generalzod]

The NRL created this. Can’t wait for this to appear again in a semi final what a great rule

No the players abused it...

 

[myrrh ken]

From memory, McInness didn't even look up at Jackson, didn't double pump the pass, so not sure how it was deliberate.

 

[SBD82]

View attachment 20810

McInnes looked, yes. Although that photo doesn't prove if he looked prior to passing or in the action of passing.

Regardless, Jackson didn't make the effort to get out of the ruck. The defending team shouldn't gain an advantage because an offside player is in the way of the attacking team.

 

[myrrh ken]

McInnes looked, yes. Although that photo doesn't prove if he looked prior to passing or in the action of passing.

Regardless, Jackson didn't make the effort to get out of the ruck. The defending team shouldn't gain an advantage because an offside player is in the way of the attacking team.

Specsavers? He is looking straight at jackson and is ready to pass.

I agree with the rule being shit.

But im pretty sure mcinnes targetted him and decided to pass to graham not hunt.

 

[SBD82]

Specsavers? He is looking straight at jackson and is ready to pass.

I agree with the rule being shit.

But im pretty sure mcinnes targetted him and decided to pass to graham not hunt.

Specsavers? No. I think he looked prior to your photo (from memory) but your photo shows him with his hands on the ball. Could easily be in the motion of passing. Watch any dummy half pass. The head goes first followed by the hands in one fluid motion.

Regardless of any of that. It seems we agree. Shit rule. You've demonstrated the problem with the rule in your own comment. You're "pretty sure" that McInnes targeted Jackson. I'm positive that Jackson didn't clear the ruck properly. If there's one thing that the refs have shown over the years it's that they are hopeless when rules are left to their interpretation.

 

[typicalfan]

No the players abused it...

They allowed the players to abuse it then they created a new rule without thinking of the implication. Which we can see already after the first time the rule was used.

 

[The_Shield]

I have no problem with this penalty going against the Dragons. I would have had no problem if it went against the Dogs either tho. To me McInnes definitely tried to milk it and let’s be honest McInnes was a frequent abuser of this before the rule change

 

[JamesRustle]

McInnes looked, yes. Although that photo doesn't prove if he looked prior to passing or in the action of passing.

Regardless, Jackson didn't make the effort to get out of the ruck. The defending team shouldn't gain an advantage because an offside player is in the way of the attacking team.

Correct. MerKen being just that.

 

[carcharias]

View attachment 20810

That’s as looking at him as your arse

 

[Barkley]

The ruck is defined as the area between the ball player and the marker. So Jackson was out of the ruck hence no penalty against him.

McInnes deliberately threw the ball into Jackson and got pinged for it. The rule works, stop blaming the NRL.

Everyone whinged when it was happening and now there is still whinging when they try to stop it.

 

[SBD82]

The ruck is defined as the area between the ball player and the marker. So Jackson was out of the ruck hence no penalty against him.

So he's offside making no effort to get onside. There's no difference. He shouldn't be there, and if he is, he needs to be making an effort to get out of the way. Instead, he knelt in the way. If he lay flat, no problem.

McInnes deliberately threw the ball into Jackson and got pinged for it. The rule works, stop blaming the NRL.

Everyone whinged when it was happening and now there is still whinging when they try to stop it.

If you read the thread, you will see that many people predicted exactly what played out yesterday. An ill thought out rule, created as a knee jerk reaction, that would create ridiculous rulings.

 

[Barkley]

So he's offside making no effort to get onside. There's no difference. He shouldn't be there, and if he is, he needs to be making an effort to get out of the way. Instead, he knelt in the way. If he lay flat, no problem.

Yeah you’re clutching at straws now. McInnes tried to milk a penalty, they caught him out.

I don’t mind if this kind of thing remains a penalty or not but the player trying to milk a penalty should never be rewarded.