Konrad, Kahu and the kick

[Meth]

Pretty clear that the rule is nowhere near as clear as it needs to be.

 

[user_nat]

Unfortunately a lot of rules in this game are a little to up for interpretation.

 

[some11]

I felt it was a great defensive effort, although we can never seem to agree which rules should be black, white or grey.

 

[ZEROMISSTACKLES]

If we look at Hurrell in the video above it clearly shows the positioning of Hurrells head which is important in that his eyes visualises the whole situation. Ultimately the situation is that Kahu is in position to score a try, the realisation is in Konnies head the whole time and Hurrell defending as best as he can, he's going to try and stop that anyway he can. Konnie sees Kahus torso twist and the ball well cuffed as Kahu extends his arm.

Is it a penalty try? Well let's compare it to a type of penalty try that's happened this year. We have seen players chip the ball in goal, get taken out during their chase and a penalty try has been awarded. Reffs deemed that the potential try scorer would have regathered the ball and scored. Kahu HAS the ball, he's going to score that but it was kicked out as a desperate reflex action from what Hurrell saw of the situation he was in. Also unintentionally kicking would still be a penalty but the video shows Konnie saw Kahus arm, therefore he knew where to move his leg. It's all in the video.

The reason for the kick being outlawed is obvious but some might argue "what if you just put your leg there?" the thing is, it turns into a kick. You can't ask the defender to control the leg movement cos it's usually called upon as a quick action in accordance with the effort required to stop or intercept the ball. It can't be controlled or measured by reffs. Defenders will place their legs where they see the ball is about to be placed but because it happens quickly, the legs will require a swift movement (adduction, abduction, knee flexion and extension) which results in some sort of kick. It's dangerous cos it results in a kick to the upper part of the body, a toe in the eye NOW becomes possible. What if you just put your leg there? Like I said it'll turn into a kick, if you're somehow there earlier to stop the try, you won't be thinking put your leg in the way, you'd be trying to make a tackle. You only put your leg there as a last ditch effort of desperation to stop the try and that's what Hurrell did.

 

[blaza88z]

I felt it was a great defensive effort, although we can never seem to agree which rules should be black, white or grey.

why do you have a Canberra Raiders avatar?

did you lose a bet or something?

 

[KeepingTheFaith]

My opinion hasn't change since I saw it last night. I think Konnie's intention was to get his leg under the ball, but his leg and Kahu putting the ball down met in the middle.

Not fussed that it was given penalty try, but I don't think it's as clear cut as Archer has been trying to make out.

 

[thorson1987]

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.

LOL unfair play. What a crock of shit.

2 on 1 strips to prevent tries are also unfair play.

 

[Meth]

http://www.nrl.com/fw-1-press-conference-tony-archer/tabid/10959/contentid/876426/default.aspx

"Konrad Harold"

 

[no name]

http://www.nrl.com/fw-1-press-conference-tony-archer/tabid/10959/contentid/876426/default.aspx

"Konrad Harold"

merkins shouldn't know his name anyway, should be Titans number 4 to them.

Also LOL @ 99% strike rate.
Who is that according to? Themselves?

 

[Apey]

I mean, if you wanna go on about whether Conrad meant to kick the ball, or was simply trying to get his foot under the ball, you also have to explore the other side of the coin and wonder if he had kicked how he did, but smashed Kahu in the face and broken his jaw, what would we be saying then?

Don't worry about what ifs and maybes, look at the incident. What does it look like? To the refs it looked like a duck, so it was called a duck.

This logic is awful and what follows with the 'if logic' is that if someone tries to make a regulation tackle but instead smashed someone head high, what would we be saying then?

I agree the people who didn't think it was intentional are kidding themselves though.

Correct call by the rules, the rule is garbage though and it's just like the shoulder charge rule. You should be punished if you get it wrong. A player shouldn't be punished for getting it right and kicking the ball out to save a try.

 

[Light Reflections]

derp

 

[Penrose Warrior]

merkins shouldn't know his name anyway, should be Titans number 4 to them.

Also LOL @ 99% strike rate.
Who is that according to? Themselves?

These f**kwits would count the successful detection of a 50m gridiron pass as part of their strike rate. Absolutely irrelevant number.

Anyway, this is the call I had the least problem with. Maybe it's an iffy penalty try but the way I see it, if you look at it in pure isolation away from all the other horrific calls, it's got merit. Maybe not a cast iron try but I see the basis.

 

[snickers007]

TL;DR The referees got it so wrong - because Rules


This was 100% the WRONG call. The Rugby League Laws of the Game, and the 2016 NRL Laws and Interpretations do not (in any way) indicate that this should have been a penalty try.

Let's look at the relevant rules:

Penalty Try - 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 goal posts irrespective of where the offence occurred.

Note that unfair play is not defined anywhere in the Laws of the Game, nor the NRL Laws and Interpretations.

Definition of misconduct - A player is guilty of misconduct if he trips, kicks or strikes another player

Note that it is only illegal to kick another player.

This DOES NOT exist

There is no Billy Slater rule. Billy Slater was penalised, and charged under the existing misconduct rule - because he was kicking another player, while attempting to dislodge the ball with his feet.

Due to the frequency that Billy Slater and other fullbacks began sliding in with their feet, the interpretation of the misconduct rule became:

a player cannot attempt to dislodge the ball with his feet while trying to stop a try being scored.

However this interpretation is missing a key qualifier, that is:

a player cannot kick another player, while attempting to dislodge the ball with his feet while trying to stop a try being scored

The referees have forgotten the context surrounding their interpretation. All they remember is the type of action that is outlawed, without thinking about the rules, and why the interpretation came about. They have jumped from their incorrect interpretation (cannot dislodge a ball with your foot) in a sliding motion like Billy Slater popularised, to saying that you cannot kick dislodge the ball with your foot full-stop.

They can't even use the contrary conduct rule to get the penalty try decision:

Definition of misconduct - A player is guilty of misconduct if he behaves in any way contrary to the true spirit of the game

Considering that you are allowed to:

• Steal the ball if the player is attempting to score a try (Section 11. Note for Rule 9)
• Kick the ball in any direction during play (Section 5. Rule 3)

I'm not sure how this action could possibly be contrary conduct. Stealing the ball is not defined in the Laws of the Game, and thus is allowed with both hands and feet - so long as the stealing action does not result in the player striking or kicking the other player.


TL;DR The referees got it so wrong - because Rules

 

[rockcod]

It would be more against the spirit of the game to not try and stop the try with the foot. The only way it could penalty try if there was an actual rule about the foot not being allowed but I am just not seeing it. How is trying to stop a try in any safe way be against the spirit of the game?

Anyone that was charged with leading with the feet would have been charged with dangerous contact or contrary conduct, not leading with the feet because it isn't even a rule.

 

[GoTheBroncs]

I felt it was a great defensive effort, although we can never seem to agree which rules should be black, white or grey.

There have been heaps of shoulder charges that haven't been dangerous, doesn't stop it from being against the rules.

 

[GoTheBroncs]

Of all the decisions on that night I'm surprised it is this one that is getting the most debate. After all the dribble during the game and post-match it took Vonny about 5 seconds to put them all in their place.

 

[snickers007]

Of all the decisions on that night I'm surprised it is this one that is getting the most debate. After all the dribble during the game and post-match it took Vonny about 5 seconds to put them all in their place.

Care to sum up her argument for those who didn't see it?

 

[Meth]

Care to sum up her argument for those who didn't see it?

Something about the vibe, the constitution and Mabo

 

[ZEROMISSTACKLES]

Anyone that was charged with leading with the feet would have been charged with dangerous contact or contrary conduct, not leading with the feet because it isn't even a rule.

Lol cringeworthy paragraph.

 

[rockcod]

Lol cringeworthy paragraph.

Can you explain what rule Hurrell violated?