Raiders fined for time-wasting

[Doctor]

Time wasting Raiders fined
Written by: NRL Media Release
17/3/04 Views: 2

The Canberra Raiders have become the first club to be issued with a breach notice for exceeding the 90-second time limit for goal kicking.

All goal kicks from the weekend's matches have been reviewed and Clinton Schifcofske was the only player found to have breached the rule.

Clinton took 95 seconds for his final kick from six attempts in the Raiders game against the Dragons at Oki Jubilee Oval on Sunday.

The breach brings a $2000 fine.

"Like all matters there is a period in which this can be contested but the NRL has been clear that it wants to eliminate any time-wasting during goal-kicks," NRL Chief Operating Officer Mr Graham Annesley said today.

"We already think there has been a conscious effort by goal kickers to speed things along and they have done remarkably well to make the adjustment.

"Having set the rule for that very reason, we now have a duty to enforce it."

No surprises here - he was always going to be in trouble if he continued his time-wasting silliness.

I'm a big fan of allowing players to compose themselves, but 90+ seconds to kick a freakin goal is just ridiculous. Who knows what extra excitement the fans could see in the extra 30-40 seconds this fellow wastes ever time he kicks.
4-5 kicks at goal = 450+ seconds at the very least - that's several minutes of value wiped off the game.

Here here NRL - good to see a strict approach taken on this time wasting issue.

 

[MC DUI]

Now Oswin I don't know if your poll was referring to all goal-kicks or just this one by Shifcoske, I took it as referring to this kick by Shifcoske and therefore I say it is too harsh.
I mean geez they just implemented the rule in round one and one of his six kicks is over by 5 seconds and they want to penalise already. IMO it was too harsh in this case, overall I don't mind the rule but I think we could see a few more missed goals this year as a result.

 

[snapper]

Couldn't agree more Oswin. 90 secs is more than enough time to pot over a goal. Everyone's in the same boat, so if any of the kickers can't copr they'll just have to put in a bit more practice

How about this.. Clint akes 95 secs to kick his first goal, so he only gets 85 secs for his next He then takes 100 secs, so his shotclock then goes down to 70 secs. He'd learn his lesson quick then.

Also, at the risk of sounding really naive, can someone please let me know how I vote in these polls?

 

[snapper]

Dont worry about that last question. The answer has now become blaringly obvious

 

[northey]

heheheheheheheheheheheheh

 

[Danish Moo Cow]

Naughty, naughty Clinton. I know its not your fault though, he's just another slow Queenslander.

 

[~bedsy~]

I hate sitting there waiting for them to kick the goal... I mean get it over and done with... I don't want to have to watch someone kick a ball for over 90 secs.

 

[Johns-All-Day]

Definitely fair enough. It's a much-needed rule, and there shouldn't be any allowances made just because it was the first week of implementation. In that event, someone may get fined next week and then say "Oh but Shifcofske didn't get fined last week, that's not fair". Being only 5 seconds over is not the point ... the rule is 90 seconds max, and he broke that rule. Good to see the NRL have followed through on this one.

 

[Matt23]

Serves him right, he'll hurry up in future.

 

[Gidsgal]

I think thats fair, the rule came in before the season started, so they should all be very aware of the rule, if they break it now, then tough luck, they should recieve the fine and penilty!!!!

 

[astrogirl]

I mean geez they just implemented the rule in round one and one of his six kicks is over by 5 seconds and they want to penalise already. IMO it was too harsh in this case, overall I don't mind the rule but I think we could see a few more missed goals this year as a result.

I can understand the need to be consistent though. Any kind of subjectivity to this rule would take away a lot of it's effect IMO.

It has to be a rigid rule, otherwise you would find that judgement calls would be made such as "it's not ok to take 95 seconds for a kick in the 5th minute that is right in front of the posts, but it's ok to take 95 seconds in the 79th minute where the successful conversion would result in a win for the team".

 

[Doctor]

Now Oswin I don't know if your poll was referring to all goal-kicks or just this one by Shifcoske, I took it as referring to this kick by Shifcoske and therefore I say it is too harsh.
I mean geez they just implemented the rule in round one and one of his six kicks is over by 5 seconds and they want to penalise already. IMO it was too harsh in this case, overall I don't mind the rule but I think we could see a few more missed goals this year as a result.

The 90 second maximum is exactly that :arrow: A maximum
1 second, 5 seconds, or 50 seconds - it's all time wasting.

The reason they have a 90-second limit is because it is a time-limit so ridiculously easy to remain within, that they shouldn't be fining people every week. Problem is, some goalkickers fluff around too much - Schicofske and his club cop the punishment for wasting t.v time, spectator time and the NRL's time.

If they didn't spent so long kicking goals, there wouldn't be the need for the NRL to waste man-hours going through all the goals each round and issuing breach notices.

As for the 4 or 5 lots of six - I'm talking about if there were several breaches. If goalkickers had 90 seconds to chew up per kick, then potentially you lose up to 8-10 minutes, just for goalkicking - provided there are about 7-8 goal attempts per match across both sides.