Milford / Oates collision.... play-on or not?

[betcats]

I think once we as fans let go of our consistency fixation(I include me in that)the game will be better off.

The rules being applied consistently is a basic part of sport, this expectation is never going away and nor should it

 

[betcats]

As for this specific incident, if they want to stop play for injuries fine but after Oates went off Penrith twice had players injured lying in the ruck while defending and they played for at least a couple plays before the game stopped. Tyrone May didn't move after he went down, he had the broncos players stepping on him to play the ball, the injury looked so serious Alfie Langer had to go check on him as Penrith couldn't get trainers on the field because we were defending and the refs wouldn't stop the game, it was disgusting considering they stopped the game costing us a certain try because a broncos player was hurt in back play.

I don't blame the refs for losing despite feeling it should of just been play on, but I certainly walked away disgusted with the fact their 'duty of care' was applied so differently to Penrith more than once.

 

[Big Pete]

It's a difficult one and I understand being frustrated by it, but there's a difference between a player in possession suffering a serious injury and a defender. Namely there's likely to be some gamesmanship involved and there's been cases this year where players have gone down, taken their sweet time so they can suck in the big ones and cruel whatever momentum the attacking has had.

Also when it comes to Katoa, fans need to be mindful the whistle was blown after he had taken a couple of steps. It wasn't like Whare was in the in-goal, the referees made up their minds early and the players reacted accordingly.

As far as it being play on regardless, the rules aren't clear but this is what the NRL rule book states...

Accidental offside : Where the Referee is satisfied that interference with play by an offside player is accidental he should order a scrum.

The ball made contact with Milford who was in-front of Oates. Based on how the rule applies and the wording in the rule book it implies that it's a mandatory ruling.

 

[edabomb]

Play on every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Must be why they don't play big games on Sunday any more.

The ball was cleared from the scene of the event instantly and no chance of coming back through where Oates was. I haven't seen clear footage of the accidental off side, from the angles I saw I thought the ball may have touched Milford but Oates was still in possession at the time.

 

[The Charlatan]

I think the right call was made, especially since it appeared to be accidental offside. Even if was fine to have let the play run I have to agree with Mogsheens' post a few pages back in that if the bloke started fitting and something serious came of it the NRL would be put through the wringer for it. Welfare trumps a result.

I have a soft spot for the Pennies and can't stand Brisbane so no bias here.

 

[beave]

All Brisbane hatred aside, I personally would have played on.

The accidental offside thing can be negated by playing an advantage to Penrith after they picked the ball up and ran away with it.

And the fact the play was heading down field and away from the 2 injured players, I reckon in Fridays scenario, they could have played on.

But, there's arguments either way and I respect that the refs had the players welfare in mind which is the most important thing out of all of this. Im actually surprised he is in line to play this weekend, it looked pretty serious on the night.

 

[Canard]

The rules being applied consistently is a basic part of sport, this expectation is never going away and nor should it

Your never going to have consistency in this situation though, as every injury is different. You have to allow for discretion.

 

[kdalymc]

Eight pages of rubbish can we lock this thread

 

[betcats]

Your never going to have consistency in this situation though, as every injury is different. You have to allow for discretion.

Disagree completely, refs shouldn't be playing doctor at all let alone being asked to decide the severity of injuries in a split second.

Watch a replay, Tyrone May dropped and didn't move he just lay still in the foetal pretty much, how does the ref know he didn't break his neck attempting the tackle? Or get knocked out? Being the defending team we couldn't even get a trainer to him hence Alfie felt the need to check on him. He was literally in the ruck and they allowed play to go on over him, Oates was in back play with a trainer. What discretion was used? It was shocking.


Edit: If you're argument for allowing them discretion is this vastly different use of the rules for very similar situations(by the same refs in the same game) then I don't think its a good argument at all. It just shows you give them discretion and they will f**k it up. Just give them the rules.

 

[Big Pete]

The accidental offside thing can be negated by playing an advantage to Penrith after they picked the ball up and ran away with it.

Has advantage ever been applied for an accidental offside before?

 

[beave]

Has advantage ever been applied for an accidental offside before?

I'd have to rack my brain mate.

 

[betcats]

Has advantage ever been applied for an accidental offside before?

Why shouldn't it? Usually it happens with the offside player picking up the ball(or someone else from his team) hence there is no advantage, but if the ball ends up with the other team there is absolutely no reason to no allow advantage if it is there. None at all.

I don't believe they called offside anyway but say it happened exactly the same except without the brutal knockout it would be criminal not give advantage in that situation.


I don't mind them stopping for Oates FTR I just think they are dogs for not applying that same discretion to not one but two injured panthers.

 

[Big Pete]

Why shouldn't it?

Because of how the rule is written and applied in the game. Usually when you see an accidental offside the referee blows a scrum right away.

Common sense would say it's play-on, but the rules aren't found on common sense.

I don't mind them stopping for Oates FTR I just think they are dogs for not applying that same discretion to not one but two injured panthers.

Understandable, but the fact one player had possession when he was injured and the other didn't has a bearing.

 

[some11]

Just give them the rules.

Sure - accidental offside, scrum.

 

[betcats]

Because of how the rule is written and applied in the game. Usually when you see an accidental offside the referee blows a scrum right away.

Common sense would say it's play-on, but the rules aren't found on common sense.



Understandable, but the fact one player had possession when he was injured and the other didn't has a bearing.

Yeah it means it was an advantage to you and a disadvantage to us.

Of course the advantage applies im not going to argue that.

 

[betcats]

Sure - accidental offside, scrum.

This is not what they called anyway. It came up after the fact.

 

[no name]

Understandable, but the fact one player had possession when he was injured and the other didn't has a bearing.

So duty of care only applies to attacking players?
I know what you are getting at re gamesmanship etc. but once again the refs/NRL have made a rod for their own back by coming out and saying safety first, we have a duty of care etc. but not applying it consistently.

 

[Bobby DIGital]

It was clearly play on. LOL @ this accidental offside crap.

 

[Big Pete]

The only gripe I have is that play could have been called sooner in both instances. Otherwise I don't have an issue with there being different standards for an attacking and defending side.

I'm sure Brisbane supporters would have preferred it if they had have called time on the May incident. They tried to throw it wide and spilled it, giving RCG a fair crack close to half-time.

 

[ed-grimley]

It was clearly play on. LOL @ this accidental offside crap.

That appears to be the bottom here.