Nightingale plays the ball to himself

[Fordy20]

Courtesy of NZAUTV Rugby League

 

[benched tiger]

Classic bit of refereeing,how do the ref bosses explain this one!

 

[The Charlatan]

Didn't he rule six again and claim play on.

They were godawful, don't blame the ref for letting them have that one.

 

[muzby]

he walks on water too..

 

[ek999]

Didn't he rule six again and claim play on.

They were godawful, don't blame the ref for letting them have that one.

I think they got it right and you can play the ball to yourself, even if the commentators don't think so. You just need to get behind the ball before you do so. Nightingale got a foot behind the ball before picking it up so he was free to play on.

If that isn't right, the only other option could have been a Dragons penalty for interfering with the play the ball IMO

 

[innsaneink]

I think they got it right and you can play the ball to yourself, even if the commentators don't think so. You just need to get behind the ball before you do so. Nightingale got a foot behind the ball before picking it up so he was free to play on.

If that isn't right, the only other option could have been a Dragons penalty for interfering with the play the ball IMO

I'd like to see that in the rules book

Not saying youre wrong...but if I had to guess id say you are

 

[innsaneink]

Actually it appears Ek999 may be correct....but only in the case if there is no marker, can a player playing the ball also be acting half (dummy half)

 

[benched tiger]

It probably should of been a Saints penalty for the WT player laying in the play the ball area,however that doesn't make what happened acceptable, as a marker and dummy half were both in place.Correct me if i am wrong but isn't the ball carrier when tackled now prevented from tapping the ball forward if there is no marker ,which is similar to what has happened here.

 

[Fordy20]

I think they got it right and you can play the ball to yourself, even if the commentators don't think so. You just need to get behind the ball before you do so. Nightingale got a foot behind the ball before picking it up so he was free to play on.

If that isn't right, the only other option could have been a Dragons penalty for interfering with the play the ball IMO

I thought the same as the commentators, but I had a look at the rules and your first call appears to be right and it seems you don't even need to get behind the ball.

Play with foot

10.(e) When the ball touches the ground it must be heeled (i.e. backwards) by the tackled player. The ball must not be kicked or heeled by the player marking him.

The ball is in play when it has been played backward.

It seems any player who isn't out of play can pick up the ball once the ball has been heeled backwards. We see this when the tackled player expects the acting half to be there when he plays the ball, only to have the marker swoop down on it and regain possession because there's no acting half. You could even heel the ball back to another a team mate who isn't at acting half.

If we assume for the sake of argument that the play the ball wasn't complete when the ball hit Halatau, then your other interpretation is probably close enough for most people, but after the reading the rules I'd say it's a scrum, due to Halatau's interference being unintentional.

Penalise intentional interference

10.(g) If the ball is played quickly, all players will not necessarily have time to retire the prescribed distance. They should be penalised only if they intentionally interfere with play – either actively or passively.

Accidental interference

If the interference with play is accidental, a scrum should be formed. Interference should not be considered accidental when the player concerned has had opportunity to remove himself from the area in which play is taking place.

Finally, I'd say the only part the ref got wrong was when he restarted the tackle count. Halatau didn't play at the ball, so it shouldn't have been six again. In the end it didn't matter because of the Naiqama intercept.