just wondering

[jimmythehand]

panthers put a grubber into the in-goal, it's last bounce is half a meter before the dead-ball line, dragons player catches it over the dead ball line before it bounces.

Shouldn't it have been a goal line drop-out?

No-one batted an eyelid!

 

[Pigskin]

Nightingale, and i agree with you

I think Nightingale might have even been in mid-air also

Oink !

 

[God-King Dean]

Yeah. I yelled f*ck when Nightingale touched it. I thought I was the only one who saw it.

F*ck we were lucky tonight.

 

[Whos Ya Daddy]

Happens all the time.

I think there is an unwritten rule that once you step out of the field of play you can take the ball dead providing there is no pressure on you. That is certainly how it is officiated.

 

[fossie71]

Happens all the time.

I think there is an unwritten rule that once you step out of the field of play you can take the ball dead providing there is no pressure on you. That is certainly how it is officiated.

i think you are right with that assumption.it seems that alot of the old rules have been thrown out the window.perhaps if they brought back the proper scrum and penalised for the bullsh*t forward passes then the game might be better off.

 

[Hypocrates]

I agree with fozzy also I hate it when they get in fights and dont hit each other BRING BACK THE BIFF!

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

Once you step out of the field, you become out of the field. So, if Nightingale was out when he touched the ball, it is ruled to be dead but not off him.

It is the same rule that allows a player to put one foot over the sideline and touch a kick-off on the full, thus making it an "out on the full" kick and getting his team a penalty.

 

[SSFC Hitman]

Once you step out of the field, you become out of the field. So, if Nightingale was out when he touched the ball, it is ruled to be dead but not off him.

It is the same rule that allows a player to put one foot over the sideline and touch a kick-off on the full, thus making it an "out on the full" kick and getting his team a penalty.

If this is the case...when a player is shadowing a ball over the deadball line...why don't they take an extra step over the deadball line and touch the ball...hence making it dead earlier??

 

[Gaba]

If this is the case...when a player is shadowing a ball over the deadball line...why don't they take an extra step over the deadball line and touch the ball...hence making it dead earlier??

Because the ball is still ingoal and the player is the one who took the ball dead, different to

the ball went over the dead ball line means the ball is out of play , so therefore the ruling was correct because the ball was not ingoal

 

[Eels Dude]

If this is the case...when a player is shadowing a ball over the deadball line...why don't they take an extra step over the deadball line and touch the ball...hence making it dead earlier??

The NRL went to specific lengths to change that rule because players were doing it all the time in the late 90's. Every time a kick was put ingoal, the fullback would put one foot over the dead ball line then reach in and bat the ball dead.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

In order to get one foot outside, you have to move yourself from the position in between the ball and the approaching attacking player. It's very hard to get out of play but still block the ball from the attacker. So they probably don't do it because it opens up the opportunity to let a try in, for which they would get smashed by the coach.

Eels Dude's comments above are different. It used to be that if you were shadowing the ball and it either accidentally bounced in to you or you were pushed in to it by an attacking player you were still considered to not have played at the ball. It was changed so that a "shadow" was considered a play at the ball even though you were not touching it, because you were trying to deny the attacker the opportunity to score.

The reason people don't try to put themselves out when shadowing is because of the first reason I listed, not the second.

 

[Azkatro]

The NRL went to specific lengths to change that rule because players were doing it all the time in the late 90's. Every time a kick was put ingoal, the fullback would put one foot over the dead ball line then reach in and bat the ball dead.

Didn't Paul Carige try something like that in the famous '98 semi and f**k it up completely? :lol:

 

[Eels Dude]

Didn't Paul Carige try something like that in the famous '98 semi and f**k it up completely? :lol:

Something similar. He caught the ball in the field of play and then put one foot over the sideline. Which is much worse.

 

[stuke]

Didn't Paul Carige try something like that in the famous '98 semi and f**k it up completely? :lol:

in that game basically anything he tried he managed to f**k up completely!

 

[God-King Dean]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IFLa5fT0yQ

For those who haven't seen Paul Cariges favourite day.

 

[*Paul*]

The NRL went to specific lengths to change that rule because players were doing it all the time in the late 90's. Every time a kick was put ingoal, the fullback would put one foot over the dead ball line then reach in and bat the ball dead.

I hated that, and was glad they stopped it.

The theory was as the player was out of play, he formed part of the out of bounds area. So when he touched it, it wasn't him touching it, it was "out of bounds" touching it. So it was deemed not to have been touched by the defender. Which lead to the farcical situation of that in goal nonsense, where the defender was clearly making it dead, but ruled not to have.

Problem is, this concept still applies, just not in that way, with the one foot in, one foot out tactic. The ball should be out of bounds when it touches the ground out of bounds, or when it touches a player who is out of bounds, with the toucher deemed to have put it out. That would rule out the straddling the line trick, but clean up the rule properly.