Ivan Cleary hit with $20k breach notice

[The_Frog]

been drinking the bath water again?


edit. Big Pete beat me to it

OK then so if this is in fact the same incident how is Naden not square? Any squarer he'd be a frickin Rubiks cube. And that looks like a foot on the goal line to me.

This is a penalty given to the attacking team, right on the goal line, for marker not square. Five minutes after the Raiders did exactly the same thing and it was allowed. And you reckon the team behind wasn't being managed back into it.

 

[shear_joy9]

OK then so if this is in fact the same incident how is Naden not square? Any squarer he'd be a frickin Rubiks cube. And that looks like a foot on the goal line to me.

he's not square. Not even close.

 

[The_Frog]

No they definitely challenged the 2nd man.

Another very dodgy decision. I've never before seen a flop given when the tackled player still has momentum,m even if they've touched the ground. If he could have slid all the way to the tryline it would have been a try.

It will all be worth it if this practice of giving legups to the losing side is taken out the back and shot immediately.

 

[The_Frog]

he's not square. Not even close.

Not only is he square, his foot is on the tryline.

 

[Perth Red]

OK then so if this is in fact the same incident how is Naden not square? Any squarer he'd be a frickin Rubiks cube. And that looks like a foot on the goal line to me.

This is a penalty given to the attacking team, right on the goal line, for marker not square. Five minutes after the Raiders did exactly the same thing and it was allowed. And you reckon the team behind wasn't being managed back into it.

Hes about a foot to the right, not square at all lol. His left hip is lined up with players right shoulder. If he was genuinely square on the Raiders player would be giving him a blowie

 

[shear_joy9]

Not only is he square, his foot is on the tryline.

not sure whether you're thick or just shit stirring

 

[The_Frog]

Hes about a foot to the right, not square at all lol. His left hip is lined up with players right shoulder.

Look in the pic where the two boots are.

 

[The_Frog]

not sure whether you're thick or just shit stirring

I know Raiders fans are never going to admit they got help to make the score respectable. But what will happen now is the practice will stop. Just wait and see.

 

[shear_joy9]

This is a penalty given to the attacking team, right on the goal line, for marker not square. Five minutes after the Raiders did exactly the same thing and it was allowed. And you reckon the team behind wasn't being managed back into it.

Jack is squarer than George Williams nose. To suggest that this is comparable to Naden is ridiculous

 

[Big Pete]

I didn't realise they actually got a close-up of the entire Naden incident. He clearly wasn't square at marker and his foot goes past the centre of the ruck when he extends it before the call of go.

The Wighton incident is similar, but as shear_joy illustrated there were a few key differences that makes it fair.

Were there any other calls that warrant any outrage?

 

[betcats]

Or Mansour could have stopped faking like a little bitch and played the ball.

f**k it was good smashing your team

 

[The_Frog]

I didn't realise they actually got a close-up of the entire Naden incident. He clearly wasn't square at marker and his foot goes past the centre of the ruck when he extends it before the call of go.

It's a long lens and all but in the pic posted above the man playing the ball's right foot looks to be pretty much in line with Naden's left foot, which is on the goal line. He's leaning to the right planning to reach out and hit the arm of the dummy half, but if those two feet are in line as the pic appears to show, and even if not if his foot is on the line when the ball is played (it is not compulsory to have a marker, especially defending on your own line), he is onside and he is entitled to tackle the dummy half.

 

[Big Pete]

It's a long lens and all but in the pic posted above the man playing the ball's right foot looks to be pretty much in line with Naden's left foot, which is on the goal line.

Yes, so he's clearly not square unlike Wighton.

He's leaning to the right planning to reach out and hit the arm of the dummy half, but if those two feet are in line as the pic appears to show, and even if not if his foot is on the line when the ball is played (it is not compulsory to have a marker, especially defending on your own line), he is onside and he is entitled to tackle the dummy half.

The defender cannot place their front foot past the centre of the ruck when defending on their goal-line.

It's a very technical rule which is why I asked for clarification in this thread.

 

[Tiger5150]

What I love about LU is often you will see a thread with a headline that has zero interest to you, doesnt involve your club and it seems that the banality of the conversation would hurt your soul. Fair enough, each to their own.

But the actual gold of LU is when you notice that one of these thread has progressed through MANY pages, WAY beyond its natural lifespan for normal folk and there is obviously something drivings its momentum, and when you bravely venture in it is being perpetuated by wit and sparkling humour.

This is not one of those threads

 

[Chimp]

What I love about LU is often you will see a thread with a headline that has zero interest to you, doesnt involve your club and it seems that the banality of the conversation would hurt your soul. Fair enough, each to their own.

But the actual gold of LU is when you notice that one of these thread has progressed through MANY pages, WAY beyond its natural lifespan for normal folk and there is obviously something drivings its momentum, and when you bravely venture in it is being perpetuated by wit and sparkling humour.

This is not one of those threads

You sir, win a golden sticker for ‘post of the day’....

 

[Pete Cash]

It's a long lens and all but in the pic posted above the man playing the ball's right foot looks to be pretty much in line with Naden's left foot, which is on the goal line. He's leaning to the right planning to reach out and hit the arm of the dummy half, but if those two feet are in line as the pic appears to show, and even if not if his foot is on the line when the ball is played (it is not compulsory to have a marker, especially defending on your own line), he is onside and he is entitled to tackle the dummy half.

Mate I know you are old but your eyes can't be that rooted

 

[Canard]

he's not square. Not even close.

Yep, this is a textbook example of not being square at marker.

 

[forby]

When is the hearing?

 

[Frailty]

been drinking the bath water again?


edit. Big Pete beat me to it

So just to clarify for some people:

• Naden is not square, and therefore can't be considered to be the marker.
• Since he is not marker, he is required to have one foot on or behind the the goal line (which he does), however he is required to NOT have a foot past the centre of the ruck.
• The ruck under the laws of the game is defined as "the area, at the play-the-ball, between the player playing the ball and the marker".
• Naden's right foot looks to be inline with the centre of the ruck, or just past it. Referee made the the call and it's hard to argue he was offside.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

he's not square. Not even close.

Agreed, he's more of an oblong...