Match Discussion: Round 11 vs Panthers @ McDonald Jones Stadium

[Frederick]

Been disgusted with RL Mole continually stiring shit with Ross situation. He clearly has a dislike for the Knights as I see no such bitching about Cody Walker and Souths. So hard not to comment on it all. And Rossy still acknowledging him and comments isn't going to help his chances getting back in to 1st. Not saying he shouldn't but Brown won't take shit if he still continues via media.

Wish Toohey would shut the Mole down. But probably smarter to not get involved. Or even Brown... tell him to come ask questions personally and stop hiding behind a f**king keyboard.

Anywho. Where's my beer?!

The Moles bias against us isn't surprising as he's a News Ltd lackey, which would be part of the reason why Toohey will never shut him down publicly

 

[Alex28]

Yeah, no problems from me with regards to our poor handling - that was where we lost the game. The shit calls didn't help the fact though

Problem is that shit calls against us seem to be the norm...

 

[Bring it home Knights]

Feeney with 2 try assists and 3 line-break assists yesterday. How many has Hodko had all year?

The differences between Feeney and Hodkinson are massive. Feeney is a zippy type of player who is unpredictable and keeps the opposition guessing. Hodkinson would have to be the slowest knights player over 10 metres and is robotic in the way he plays.

 

[TheFrog]

As mentioned above neither of feeneys arms hit the ground, so ball is still in play.

Section 11, 2 of the Laws of Rugby League:

"A player is tackled when....
(d) he is lying on the ground and an opponent places a hand on him".

It is not necessary for a hand or arm to contact the ground for a tackle to be effected.

 

[Frederick]

Section 11, 2 of the Laws of Rugby League:

"A player is tackled when....
(d) he is lying on the ground and an opponent places a hand on him".

It is not necessary for a hand or arm to contact the ground for a tackle to be effected.

Maybe you should actually try reading and comprehending the laws of the game before you pick and choose clauses to suit your argument


Section 11, paragraph 2-a:
"A tackled player is grounded when he is held by one of more opposing players and the ball or the hand or arm holding the ball comes into contact with the ground."

The section you were referring to was in the case of a player already on the ground, which feeney was not.



Section 11, paragraph 8 - additional notes:
"A player in possession brought to his knees or brought to the ground on his back may still pass the ball - provided he has not made it evident that he has succumbed to the tackle."

 

[Caped Crusader]

Haha Lawyered

 

[Still Nutty]

Actually, really interesting read of the laws, outside of your point Frederick(which was well made ) ....I wasn't aware of the 'kick out on the full' rule where the ball travels behind the kicking team.

Also the rule regarding a moving player being tackled...I'm not sure the point about 'calling held immediately' where the team mates of the player being tackled help to restrict the push back (or push over the sideline) of the player being tackled is always applied by referees.

You learn something new every day

 

[TheFrog]

So if a player laying on their back on the ground with an opponent's hand on them is not tackled, what then is the meaning of 11,2 (d)?

And how was Feeney "not already on the ground" if he was on his back?

This try was called as a pass off the ground by every neutral in the game day forum.

Mind you, the DWZ try didn't look like one either.

 

[Frederick]

So if a player laying on their back on the ground with an opponent's hand on them is not tackled, what then is the meaning of 11,2 (d)?

11.2(d) refers to a player who had grounded themself with the ball or ball carrying arm in contact with the ground

And how was Feeney "not already on the ground" if he was on his back?

Because not once did the ball or ball carrying arm make contact with the ground, nor did feeney succumb to the tackle

This try was called as a pass off the ground by every neutral in the game day forum.

Mind you, the DWZ try didn't look like one either.

Then it sounds like there's a lot more people who need to learn the rules

 

[TheFrog]

There are 4 possible requirements for a tackle to be completed (it must be said that the laws are rather ambiguously written, the word "or" should appear between a and b, b and c, and c and d). Only one of them needs to be satisfied. I think you are suggesting all of them need to be satisfied but that is ludicrous. How many tackles are made where the tackled player's hand or arm never touch the ground? Hundreds every game. Does a player have to succumb, as in (c) to be tackled? Of course not.

The fourth possibility, (d), was met in this case. The player in possession was lying on the ground (how he got there is irrelevant) and an opponent's hand was on him. Under the laws of the game, that is a tackle. He should have got up and played the ball, which was what the defending team would have been expecting to happen. It was not even sent upstairs. It is very difficult to come up with any explanation other than the ref wanted Newcastle to get the first points. Even though it was (maybe) squared up later in the game they did get all the help in the early going, and were able to lead by 14 against a side that was pretty inept in the first half. As Old Panther suggested they could have led by more, but started dropping the pill regularly from the 20 minute mark, and conceding penalties as well. They lost because they could not hang onto the ball, and the opposition, with a resulting glut of possession, completely steamrolled them in the second half. The side's relatively poor fitness was quite starkly exposed.

I hope your side can win a lot more games this year. What will help that happen is cutting out the handling errors and getting the side's fitness to NRL standard. From what I saw in this game (and I know you beat the Raiders last week) the latter is the biggest problem facing the side.

 

[Frederick]

There are 4 possible requirements for a tackle to be completed (it must be said that the laws are rather ambiguously written, the word "or" should appear between a and b, b and c, and c and d). Only one of them needs to be satisfied. I think you are suggesting all of them need to be satisfied but that is ludicrous. How many tackles are made where the tackled player's hand or arm never touch the ground? Hundreds every game. Does a player have to succumb, as in (c) to be tackled? Of course not.

Uh, that's not what I'm saying at all.

The fourth possibility, (d), was met in this case. The player in possession was lying on the ground (how he got there is irrelevant) and an opponent's hand was on him. Under the laws of the game, that is a tackle.

No it wasn't. The fourth possibility states that the player is already on the ground and an opposition player places a hand on him. This happens when players defend low kicks close to their goal line, and is why players get penalized when they try to pick a player up and force them back. Feeney was taken to ground by a player, yet neither the ball nor ball carrying arm touched the ground, so he wasn't grounded.

He should have got up and played the ball, which was what the defending team would have been expecting to happen.

He was under no obligation to play the ball as the ball hadn't been grounded, and he hadn't succumbed to the tackle. If the Panthers were expecting a play the ball then it's their fault for not playing to the whistle

It was not even sent upstairs. It is very difficult to come up with any explanation other than the ref wanted Newcastle to get the first points.

Haha so because your tiny brain can't comprehend the rules of the game, it must be cheating by the refs! Geez they breed them smart at the foot of the mountains. Just stop before you embarrass yourself even more.

 

[TheFrog]

11.2(d) refers to a player who had grounded themself with the ball or ball carrying arm in contact with the ground

Ball carrying arm is from (a). (d) does not mention arms whatsoever, if a player in possession is on the ground and an opponent has a hand on him, a tackle is completed. That's what the rule says. No ifs or buts. Nothing about the ball carrying arm whatsoever. Nothing about how the player came to be on the ground. That is the rule. It has been the rule since 1908. There is a different interpretation now being applied currently in the NRL for players in the opposition in-goal attempting to get the ball down to score a try, but that is not relevant to this play.

Haha so because your tiny brain can't comprehend the rules of the game, it must be cheating by the refs!

Lets try to remain civil shall we. If you go back through the bulk of this thread it is Newcastle supporters claiming their side was poorly treated by the refs. Pot calling the kettle black, what?

 

[Still Nutty]

Actually this clause is very specific and the key word in the rules 'Hand on player already grounded' which is what Frederick has highlighted "11.2(d) refers to a player who had grounded themself with the ball or ball carrying arm in contact with the ground..." and then refers to a hand being placed on them.

The point Frederick makes, which I concur with, is that rule 11.2 (d) is not applicable in the case of Feeney because he never grounded 'himself'...the grounding was caused by the effect of a tackler. So in determining whether the tackle was made, rules 2 (a), 2 (b) or 2(c) are the only way the tackle can be assessed as completed in determining whether the tackle was effected.

In effect, this means that Section 11, paragraph 8 - additional notes then gets applied in consideration of whether Feeney's pass was legal based on the circumstances of whether Feeney had succumbed to the tackle and it states:

"A player in possession brought to his knees or brought to the ground on his back may still pass the ball - provided he has not made it evident that he has succumbed to the tackle."

The logic in Frederick's presentation of the facts are self evident and I therefore rule in favour of the Defendant - Case closed.

 

[True blue knights]

Let it go boys and move on .no try or try,we did not win the game its getting old.i am impress on the research of the rules but lets talk about something else.

 

[perverse]

Nah, lets insult each other more over a f**king NRL rule. rofl. LU: impassioned by the bigger issues.

 

[Still Nutty]

Let it go boys and move on .no try or try, we did not win the game its getting old. i am impress on the research of the rules but lets talk about something else.

Nah, lets insult each other more over a f**king NRL rule. rofl. LU: impassioned by the bigger issues.

Hey - it seems to have been the only game in town for a while....I even strayed into the dark side of Marathon Stadium for a little while because all I could hear were crickets in here

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Actually this clause is very specific and the key word in the rules 'Hand on player already grounded' which is what Frederick has highlighted "11.2(d) refers to a player who had grounded themself with the ball or ball carrying arm in contact with the ground..." and then refers to a hand being placed on them.

The point Frederick makes, which I concur with, is that rule 11.2 (d) is not applicable in the case of Feeney because he never grounded 'himself'...the grounding was caused by the effect of a tackler. So in determining whether the tackle was made, rules 2 (a), 2 (b) or 2(c) are the only way the tackle can be assessed as completed in determining whether the tackle was effected.

In effect, this means that Section 11, paragraph 8 - additional notes then gets applied in consideration of whether Feeney's pass was legal based on the circumstances of whether Feeney had succumbed to the tackle and it states:

"A player in possession brought to his knees or brought to the ground on his back may still pass the ball - provided he has not made it evident that he has succumbed to the tackle."

The logic in Frederick's presentation of the facts are self evident and I therefore rule in favour of the Defendant - Case closed.