New interpretation of grounding rule

[Ms_Corleone]

Hey guys, I just recieved this via email, incase anyone else was interested in reading it.
Shame it wasn't decided last week

Ref's boss issues try rule clarification
July 22, 2004 - 8:14PM

NRL referees boss Robert Finch has issued a rule clarification following a disallowed try to Newcastle's Michael Ennis in the Knights' last round loss to Brisbane.

Ennis was denied a potentially match-winning try in the dying minutes by video referee Paul Simpkins who ruled that the Knights reserve knocked on with his elbow before attempting to ground a bouncing ball.

Finch said even if Ennis had not knocked on it would have also been disallowed under the current "grounding the ball" rule which entailed "...dropping on the ball and covering it with the part of the body above the waist and below the neck, the ball itself being on the ground".

While Finch confirmed the decision against Newcastle was correct, he said the "no try" decision "exposed an anomaly in the existing laws of the game".

"The interpretation was correct but the anomaly the referees point out is that if the ball hasn't been knocked on, yet the try has still not been scored because of the fact the ball was bouncing at the time, then, what is the correct re-start procedure?" Finch said.

After seeking a ruling from both the ARL and the UK's RFL, Finch agreed on a rule interpretation being applied immediately which ensured a player could score a try by grounding a bouncing ball with his torso, like Ennis.

It now states: "The ball may be brought to ground by the upper torso of a player and provided that the ball is on the ground at the same time as it is covered by that part of the player's body, the ball will be deemed to have been correctly grounded".

"In effect this means that were the Newcastle scenario to be repeated this weekend, a player would be able to ground a bouncing ball with his torso and be awarded a try, provided that he has not knocked on beforehand," Finch said.

Finch said all clubs had been notified in writing of the clarification.


http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/22/1090464795975.html?oneclick=true

 

[Misanthrope]

Great. So we would have won 18-16 if the game had been played this weekend instead of last. Loverly.

 

[Kaz]

Great. So we would have won 18-16 if the game had been played this weekend instead of last. Loverly.

No because there was a knock on beforehand.

 

[Misanthrope]

So the Broncos' fans keep saying

 

[Kaz]

So the Broncos' fans keep saying

So did the video ref.

I taped the game today & it came off his elbow.

Wish I could do a screen shot of it.

 

[Misanthrope]

You have far to much time on your hands.

 

[Ms_Corleone]

Yeah Karen was right, there was a knock on leading up to the try, to which it would've been disallowed regardless, which the article also mentions.

 

[Andy]

Great. So we would have won 18-16 if the game had been played this weekend instead of last. Loverly.

No because there was a knock on beforehand.

And the fact that this interpreatation of the rule would only come into effect as a result of ennis' try being disallowed.

Please stop living in the past people.

It's over - we lost.

Oh and by the way, it wasn't Ennis' knock on that lost us the game.
It was 80 minutes of sub standard footy that lost us the game

 

[Terminator]

This new rule means you can score with your torso?
What next?

 

[Andy]

This new rule means you can score with your torso?
What next?

Amputees leading the top try scorers list :lol:

 

[Terminator]

Yeah well the way players try to score when they dive these days you'd wonder if they realised you can use your fingers to grasp the ball as its bouncing in the air before putting it down, not just dive and hope your outspread palms make contact with the ball as it touches the grass simutanuosly(spelling) ennis take note, you screwed up something a six year old can do.