New "held" rule?

[themacemaceman]

I don't think you understand what a double movement actually is. A double movement is a second movement to score a try after you're held and the ball carrying arm is on the ground. Momentum is ruled to have been stopped, same as with tackling someone over the sideline, and same with trying to force someone back into the in-goal once the tackle has been completed in an attempt to get a line dropout.

I know what a double movement is. Probably better than what the video refs do according to some of the decisions weve seen in the last few years.
So in the case of a double movement is the player deliberately advancing the ball when he knows he's tackled ie cheating....or is he in the belief he is not tackled and entitled to do so.
If we are penalising him cause he is cheating then we need to penalise every player who claims a try who knows he knocked it on or didnt get the ball down.

 

[innsaneink]

Temptation is hard to resist sometimes....Im sure in the mayhem and chaos that is a split second in trying to get a ball on or over the line....all the details that a slo mo reply provide become a bit blurred for a player trying to achieve the goal they set out to achieve

 

[barney gumble]

Fair enough points promoting attacking footy, but I don't necessarily agree. A double movement should always be penalised otherwise it can result in too many soft tries being scored, tries need to be earned, and good try saving tackles and goal line defense needs to be rewarded.

As for your sideline theory, If you take away the penalty option you'll have every winger being hurled over the sideline whenever they go near it.

 

[LRC69]

I reckon all your points are quite valid.

I would consider taking it a step further however and just get rid of the double movement rule... why is it needed?

If youre close enough and able to reach out then who cares...its often a 50/50 call.

Unless its quite obvious that the player was clearly stopped then give it.

The whole bouncing and then extending the arm out even though it already hit the ground is nonsense...

Get rid of as many of the grey area 50/50 discretionary calls as possible or bring it back to a logical "just play the ball" type situation without the penalty.

 

[themacemaceman]

Temptation is hard to resist sometimes....Im sure in the mayhem and chaos that is a split second in trying to get a ball on or over the line....all the details that a slo mo reply provide become a bit blurred for a player trying to achieve the goal they set out to achieve

Exactly my point. So instead of being a try or a penalty....why not a try or "you were tackled mate...take it back 1m and play it".
Its a lottery even for the video refs on some of these calls.

If anything alot of these double movements have an element of doubt with the slow mo replays and determing whether momentum was stopped or did he promote the ball etc and one could suggest if the "benefit of the doubt" rule applied than they would award a try.

 

[themacemaceman]

I reckon all your points are quite valid.

I would consider taking it a step further however and just get rid of the double movement rule... why is it needed?

If youre close enough and able to reach out then who cares...its often a 50/50 call.

Unless its quite obvious that the player was clearly stopped then give it.

The whole bouncing and then extending the arm out even though it already hit the ground is nonsense...

Get rid of as many of the grey area 50/50 discretionary calls as possible or bring it back to a logical "just play the ball" type situation without the penalty.

Mate you and I are exactly on the same page.
The 50/50 play the ball penalties shit me. They ruin the contest.

Now this will be controversial but if someone drops the ball when they are getting up to play the ball or in the motion of playing the ball....why cant the ref say "pick it up and play the ball" as you suggest.

No doubt this will then be exploited by blokes stripping the ball to slow the play down knowing they wont get a penalty but would take away the frustrating penalties were a bloke might have the ball dislodged accidently by somebody's knee perhaps and you see the penalty go either way.

Whatever rules are changed, somebody will find a way to exploit it unfortunately.

 

[innsaneink]

Yeh some are dubious, yet some double movements are blatant and as plain as day

The dbl movement rule is there because at some stage or another a tackle must be completed...the rules that apply to dbl mvmnts are tha same but unnecessary in general play as the refs call is all thats needed, but in a crucial situation where a try is in the balance....you need clear hard fast rules.

Ppl say, "ley anything go - if you can get it over the line its a try"...thats rubbish, tackles MUST be completed at some stage, and if this was brought in chaos would ensue

 

[LRC69]

Yeh some are dubious, yet some double movements are blatant and as plain as day

The dbl movement rule is there because at some stage or another a tackle must be completed...the rules that apply to dbl mvmnts are tha same but unnecessary in general play as the refs call is all thats needed, but in a crucial situation where a try is in the balance....you need clear hard fast rules.

Ppl say, "ley anything go - if you can get it over the line its a try"...thats rubbish, tackles MUST be completed at some stage, and if this was brought in chaos would ensue

I cant argue with this...my only issue is when the player bouncesd and reaches out desipte his ball carrying arm hitting the deck.

Having said this ..I want benefit of the doubt to go to the defence in all cases except potential forward passes on the fly.(because this promotes good attack)

MAke the try clear as pssoible..just as long as its consistant.

 

[docbrown]

Surely just sending double movement back to the 10metre like a held up in goal is the logical answer.

Don't even wait for the video ref. The onfield ref should be watching the try and making the DM decision.

I mean if you have to go to super slow mo to see the "double movement" surely there's doubt there anyway.

 

[icewind]

Defensive team is given too much leeway now anyway. I hate the fact that players keep the ball player in a standing position and as soon as they hear 'held' they quickly get the player onto their back on the ground, so as to slow down the PTB. Lets get rid of that. As for double movement idea... players know if they have done a double movement, yet some still try, just in case there is that one instance where the ref doesn't see it/video ref view is blocked.

 

[Lambretta]

I understand what he means, in a double movement the player is deemed held and attempts to keep moving eventually advancing the ball across the line and is penalized for it instead of being called back to the mark. In a situation say on the 40m line where he is said to be held and continues to play on the ref doesn't penalize the player advancing the ball up field but instead calls him back to play the ball. Double movement should no longer result in a penalty imo.

Thinking you haven't been tackled, getting up and running and reaching out whilst being held are not the same thing - therefore having different penalties for the different offences isn't inconsistent.

 

[Mader45]

One eg I can think of where this could have made sense is the Tigers vs Warriors semi last year.

Inu scores the winning try in the last few minutes by crawling across the line.

But if Moltzen put a hand on him at any point before the line its considered a tackle, would have been a double movement, penalty and Tigers win.

Aside from the ridiculousness of an outstretched hand barely touching a player on the ground constituting a tackle, it would have been fair to give Inu a chance to play the ball if Moltzen did get a hand on him.

Though as a Tigers fan i would have been cool with a double movement penalty at the time...... f**king Moltzen.

 

[JoeD]

Hate the double movement rule as it is now. Way more leeway should be given to the attacking team.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

One eg I can think of where this could have made sense is the Tigers vs Warriors semi last year.

Inu scores the winning try in the last few minutes by crawling across the line.

But if Moltzen put a hand on him at any point before the line its considered a tackle, would have been a double movement, penalty and Tigers win.

Aside from the ridiculousness of an outstretched hand barely touching a player on the ground constituting a tackle, it would have been fair to give Inu a chance to play the ball if Moltzen did get a hand on him.

Though as a Tigers fan i would have been cool with a double movement penalty at the time...... f**king Moltzen.

But Inu kept the ball and ball carrying arm off the ground, so he still would have been entitled to plant the ball

 

[docbrown]

Hmmm love that Eels double movement :lol:

 

[mxlegend99]

Surely just sending double movement back to the 10metre like a held up in goal is the logical answer.

Don't even wait for the video ref. The onfield ref should be watching the try and making the DM decision.

I mean if you have to go to super slow mo to see the "double movement" surely there's doubt there anyway.

Agreed. IMO this is much fairer then the team losing possession for what would be an accident due to instinct most of the time. Just as players are sometimes unaware of whether or not they were tackled in the middle of the field, players would not always know whether the arm carrying the ball had touched the ground at some point or if they were free to extend it.

Or even if taking it back to the 10 metre line doesn't seem like a big enough deterrent to stop people intentionally doing it, make it the 20m line instead. Losing 20 metres is still a punishment which would help deter plays from intentionally doing it, but atleast doesn't punish players and their team in all the occasions where it's a genuine accident from a player trying too hard to score a try or just not realising that he had touched the ground with the ball carrying arm.

 

[innsaneink]

Ironic thread given we saw the most blatant double movement ever today

 

[muzby]

Ironic thread given we saw the most blatant double movement ever today

were they 40m out from their own line or 40m out from the opposition's line?