Konrad, Kahu and the kick

[Nice Beaver]

Happy with the penalty try, Konrad clearly kicked at the ball, but all we need is a face in the wrong spot and some serious damage.

James Roberts - what a stupid thing to do.

Well I guess thats the thing isn't it?

If his head was there no-one would complain. Its ridiculous that a situation like that gets a penalty try when there was no danger at all tothe ball carrier.

 

[Perth Red]

One of the few decisions they got right! He kicked the ball out, on probability he would have scored had he not kicked it out. Fair call. I suppose they had to get one right!

 

[Burwood]

One moment the commentators are praising Konrad as a genius who stopped a certain try by deliberately kicking the ball out, the next minute they are dumbfounded that a penalty try was awarded and how could the video ref be certain Kahu would have scored.

As for Roberts, if the video ref couldn't go back and look at what happened prior to the play the ball and disallow the try, why couldn't they just award the try and then look back at the kick as a separate incident and say that Roberts is sent off? I would have been happy with that outcome.

 

[user_nat]

As for Roberts, if the video ref couldn't go back and look at what happened prior to the play the ball and disallow the try, why couldn't they just award the try and then look back at the kick as a separate incident and say that Roberts is sent off? I would have been happy with that outcome.

Same reason Kasiano faced no on field punishment. They (officials) can't do that?

 

[Glen]

Does the rulebook actually say something along the lines of having to be "100% sure a try would have been scored" to rule a penalty try? League commentators always say that but I highly doubt it, as that is a ridiculous way to look at it.

As for the kicking rule to stop a try, it was brought in for the right reasons. Even if it was intended more to reckless sliding in from the likes of Billy the Grub attacking tryscorers' heads, trying to interpret it in multiple ways is just even more confusing

 

[Meth]

https://www.nrl.com/portals/nrl/Rad...s Interpretations_A4_Brochure_FA_2_Proof.pdf

‘The Referee (or Review Officials) may award a penalty try if, in his opinion, a try would have been scored but for the unfair play of the defending team.

 

[Meth]

To me, if you can't kick the ball out of the players hands (fine), then you can't prevent a try by lodging your feet under the ball being grounded.

 

[rockcod]

I remember Willie Mason stopping a try with his massive chin once, I wonder if you can knock the ball out with you chin or if it is mysteriously outlawed like the foot.

 

[Jason Maher]

How many of you have actually bothered to read the rules? There is no rule that says you can't kick the ball. The referees may be acting under a directive from the NRL following the much publicised Slater incidents, but they never altered the actual rules to reflect that. The only thing outlawed in the rules is kicking a player.

http://www.nrl.com/portals/nrl/radeditor/documents/arl rules book 2016.pdf

For reference, this is the section on penalty tries:

The referee may award a penalty try if, in his opinion, a try would have been scored but for the unfair play of the defending team. A penalty try is awarded between the goalposts irrespective of where the offence occurred.

Which, in true rugby league style, is completely open to referee interpretation, since "unfair play" is nowhere defined in the rules.

 

[rockcod]

Archer justified it by saying that it was unfair play and that the unfair play was using his foot. Why that is unfair play is anyone's guess because it wasn't dangerous or reckless.

I've seen heaps of legs and feet go in trying to stop the ball being grounded in a non dangerous way and nothing ever gets a penalty.

 

[no name]

Not sure if the wording of the rule at the moment, but the fact that Hurrell made no contact whatsoever with Kahu tells me that it shouldn't have been a penalty try. And if it was correctly awarded, maybe it's worth looking at, because it wasn't dangerous and defenders deserve the right to be able to defend a try.

 

[Shorty]

How many of you have actually bothered to read the rules? There is no rule that says you can't kick the ball. The referees may be acting under a directive from the NRL following the much publicised Slater incidents, but they never altered the actual rules to reflect that. The only thing outlawed in the rules is kicking a player.

http://www.nrl.com/portals/nrl/radeditor/documents/arl rules book 2016.pdf

For reference, this is the section on penalty tries:

Which, in true rugby league style, is completely open to referee interpretation, since "unfair play" is nowhere defined in the rules.

No wonder the NRL gets itself into strife with officiating.
That ruling is vague as hell.

 

[TheDMC]

How do you know?

Seriously Meth? Well then how does anyone know anything?

It was a great instinctive action and beautifully applied by Konrad. Clearly totally intentional.

Unfortunately, against the rules and if he hadn't kicked the ball out then it was a certain try, so yep, penalty try.

The rule might be a problem though, cause in a situation like last night's, absolutely no danger in the play, then would be much better to allow such a kick. But then you open up a grey area where judging something being dangerous opens up a can of worms, so I can kinda see why the rule is black and white.

I was shocked Gould and co. did not know this rule and made the incident out to be a shocker. Plenty of shockers in this game, that decision was not one of them.

 

[rockcod]

Not sure why it would differ from someone coming in with a swinging arm or punch to knock the ball out in a try scoring situation, if they miss and knock the bloke out then penalty try but if they get the ball clean then there is no problem. It is still unfair play if its dangerous.

 

[rockcod]

I was shocked Gould and co. did not know this rule and made the incident out to be a shocker. Plenty of shockers in this game, that decision was not one of them.

What rule? what rule specifically says you cannot dislodge ball with you foot?

 

[Meth]

Seriously Meth? Well then how does anyone know anything?

It was a great instinctive action and beautifully applied by Konrad. Clearly totally intentional.

Totally.

But intending to do what?

And how do you know?

 

[Meth]

Unfortunately, against the rules and if he hadn't kicked the ball out then it was a certain try, so yep, penalty try.

Please show me the rule.

 

[Meth]

I am happy enough to say 'forget all about what his intentions were. What happened?'

I feel like, whether he intended to or not, he kicked the ball out of Kahu's hands while he was in the act of scoring the try.

What now? Is there actually a rule that makes that illegal?

 

[East Coast Tiger]

I am happy enough to say 'forget all about what his intentions were. What happened?'

I feel like, whether he intended to or not, he kicked the ball out of Kahu's hands while he was in the act of scoring the try.

What now? Is there actually a rule that makes that illegal?

Not as such.

The only rules in the book that could be used to justify it are the ambiguous ones like misconduct defined as "behaves in any way contrary to the true spirit of the game" which is obviously open to an extraordinary array of opinions as to what the "true spirit" of the game is. It's rules like that they attach their ad hoc interpretations like cannonball tackles etc to.

 

[axl rose]

It's basically the old kicking in danger rule modified by a reactionary NRL and ruled on by idiots.

I can imagine that being part of the selection criteria when applying for a job at the NRL. 1) How do you overreact to certain situations? 2) are you an idiot?

Welcome aboard.