Konrad, Kahu and the kick

[ZEROMISSTACKLES]

Do you guys think we will see something like this if we allowed defenders to kick the ball out a attackers arm in the act of scoring a try?

*Before you watch the clip, just imagine the guy on the ground is diving for a try with the ball in his arms and defender accidently misses the ball..

 

[ZEROMISSTACKLES]

Can you explain what rule Hurrell violated?

Lol please. You do understand your paragraphs syntax is poor dont you? I dont mean to be a grammar cop cos I make mistakes too but that was just cringeworthy lol.

 

[Meth]

Lol please. You do understand your paragraphs syntax is poor dont you? I dont mean to be a grammar cop cos I make mistakes too but that was just cringeworthy lol.

Being the grammar cop when we all understood what he was saying was more cringeworthy

 

[ZEROMISSTACKLES]

Being the grammar cop when we all understood what he was saying was more cringeworthy

Yep I admit to knowing what he was saying but still the paragraph is funny lol and like I said, cringeworthy.

Oh and the comeback post "Can you explain the rule Hurrell violated?" Lol FFS!

Im just happy Kahu scored and thats the bottom line cry on..

 

[rockcod]

Do you guys think we will see something like this if we allowed defenders to kick the ball out a attackers arm in the act of scoring a try?

I don't really mind if its outlawed, the point is we don't know, the interpretation was changed to stop players sliding in late with their feet, which is dangerous as you have little control when you are sliding in. What Hurrell did was nothing like this so not sure why it is automatically a penalty try when there is no rule in place to suggest it is foul play. It is a grey area when it is a non dangerous act like this, I can see both sides but they should clear it up so people know what you can and can't do.

 

[ZEROMISSTACKLES]

I don't really mind if its outlawed, the point is we don't know, the interpretation was changed to stop players sliding in late with their feet, which is dangerous as you have little control when you are sliding in. What Hurrell did was nothing like this so not sure why it is automatically a penalty try when there is no rule in place to suggest it is foul play. It is a grey area when it is a non dangerous act like this, I can see both sides but they should clear it up so people know what you can and can't do.

Yeah I know what youre saying. The thing for me is that it opens a door to some potential sinister acts detrimental to the attacking player. An example like the video I provided above NOW becomes a possibility.

I know Hurrells fantastic effort (I must say) wasnt in any way aimed at Kahus face or body, it was clearly the ball he kicked at. However, thats not to say it will always be controlled. For example, had Kahus arm been lower to the line and Hurrell chose to kick at the ball like he did, it would have to be a more powerful kick from Hurrell to get his leg there in time but the kick would be out of control and could possibly swing towards Kahus head! Another example is the thugs getting in that situation, imagine Fifita!! He'd kick someones head off and then get up saying "I was going for the ball".

The potential for danger is high whenever you can kick with a rugby boot to the torso and the receiver is defenceless and oblivious to it. "I was trying to get my leg under as fast as I possibly could" might become a fair excuse even if it results in a head kick. Hard enough scoring a try, hard enough getting there like Kahu and Roberts did, they deserved a try.

 

[Bronco18]

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:



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



Note that it is only illegal to kick another player.



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:



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



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:



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

Oh wow the smoking gun... Spirit of the game is so vague it'll could well be whatever the refs decide to crack down on, as they have done with Slater leading with his legs. And really, looking at the written rules is only half the story - people expect consistency from refs interpreting it and everyone except the dinosaurs at channel 9 knew it even if it was accepted as efficious.

Call that dangerous contact? Well the interpretation seems to be kicking contact with the ball is deemed dangerous, regardless of how close it is to the ball carrier's head, chest, dick whatever or if you've slid in Billy Slater style. I mean really, can you imagine what a clusterf**k of an interpretation it'd be if we said you can kick at the ball with your foot sometimes?

The way they've officiated (or meant to according to Archer) is black and white. We complain that refs have no sense for the game and no feel for it, but then we complain when there's a black and white doctrine in place. We put ex-players in the bunker and Cleary we've seen that "common sense" or the "feel of the game" just mean different things to different people.

EDIT: In saying that, Titans certainly have a right to complain... For mine this was the most cut and dry of all of the controversies.

 

[Jason Maher]

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

Also see the section that defines "misconduct". One of the points is just "against the spirit of the game", which again is left open to interpretation.

 

[myrrh ken]

Also see the section that defines "misconduct". One of the points is just "against the spirit of the game", which again is left open to interpretation.

Can you change your profile pic please? It's off.

 

[no name]

Do you guys think we will see something like this if we allowed defenders to kick the ball out a attackers arm in the act of scoring a try?

*Before you watch the clip, just imagine the guy on the ground is diving for a try with the ball in his arms and defender accidently misses the ball..

Lol at comparing that to Hurrell's incident.

 

[ZEROMISSTACKLES]

Lol at comparing that to Hurrell's incident.

Lol at you thinking I am comparing it to Hurrells incident.

 

[no name]

Lol at you thinking I am comparing it to Hurrells incident and failing to read and comprehend what my post says. Learn how to read lol.

Where does it say Hurrell in my post? Yeah thought so lol.

My mistake, LOL @ putting that footage in the Hurrell thread is probably more apt.

 

[ZEROMISSTACKLES]

My mistake, LOL @ putting that footage in the Hurrell thread is probably more apt.

Oh true, I see how you came to that now.

 

[rockcod]

If you are going to argue that it should be outlawed because it "could" be dangerous then you would have to outlaw kicking at a loose ball as well.

If the ball was loose in the same situation and Kahu was about to ground it and Hurrell kicked it would it have been a penalty?

Every game the ball is loose in the field of play and gets toed ahead into the in goal as the defense is trying to dive on it, or a ball dribbling in the in goal is about to be grounded and the defender just gets there and toes it dead. If the foot is illegal these should all be penalties if the other player is within arms reach of the kick.

The problem is the refs don't seem to be capable of dealing with any grey areas with any consistency.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Finally watched it. I cannot believe they gave that.

 

[Jason Maher]

Amusingly, there were two incidents in the U20s where a try was prevented by the ball being kicked out of someone's hands (one in the Saints vs Cows game, one in the Penrith vs Cronulla game). Neither incident resulted in a penalty try.

 

[ZEROMISSTACKLES]

If you are going to argue that it should be outlawed because it "could" be dangerous then you would have to outlaw kicking at a loose ball as well.

If the ball was loose in the same situation and Kahu was about to ground it and Hurrell kicked it would it have been a penalty?

Every game the ball is loose in the field of play and gets toed ahead into the in goal as the defense is trying to dive on it, or a ball dribbling in the in goal is about to be grounded and the defender just gets there and toes it dead. If the foot is illegal these should all be penalties if the other player is within arms reach of the kick.

The problem is the refs don't seem to be capable of dealing with any grey areas with any consistency.

It is a grey area and you do raise a good point. If we look at a loose ball compared to an attacking player with the ball tucked by the rib cage and in some cases the ball is either near the head or extended above the head in extending out for a try, the obvious difference is that the loose ball is not next to someones rib cage or head and in most cases, an attacker will look to place their hands on the loose ball for downward pressure to score the try, so its hands only.

In general play, I have seen an occasion where someone has pounced on a loose ball and a opposing player who was aiming for the ball kicked the guy in the head and it resulted in a bleeding nose, a knock out and a penalty.

Loose ball is another issue though.

I leave you this sentence to ponder "I kick where you duck your head".

 

[rockcod]

It should just come down to a kicking in danger type rule, can't be that hard to enforce. If someone reaches out to score it is ridiculous that a defender can't slide a foot out to try and stop it, if they lash out and contact the arm instead then worry about the penalty try. If Kahu was going over with the ball against his chest then the foot can't be used as per the Slater interpretation.

Seems more people get kicked in the ruck these days than in try scoring situations.

 

[betcats]

They give that ridiculous penalty try and then yesterday the Mbye is lying in the ruck offside when the ball is played and puts a hand on it to stop the dummy half from getting the ball away which almost certainly leads to a try and he doesn't get ten, its a professional foul denying a try scoring opportunity, the ten minute rule was invented for times just like that. The officiating of the game is in such a poor state atm. It didn't really matter yesterday but I just don't understand how they come to these decisions? I cant even imagine how it would feel to cop a refereeing performance like the titans did in an elimination game.

 

[ed-grimley]

Lol please. You do understand your paragraphs syntax is poor dont you? I dont mean to be a grammar cop cos I make mistakes too but that was just cringeworthy lol.

Heard of apostrophes?