Raiders issued with $2000 breach notice

[Steven Gerrard]

At least our side scores tries, ah memories of that game at brookie last year!

 

[Raider_69]

explain to me why the old method couldnt work, with a little refining and training for the referees, i mean how obvious is it when someone is wasting time, a ref can then go righto i think he is wasting time, time off, write it down and let a pannel sus it out latter, adding a shot clock is utter stupidity and places unnessary preasure on a kicker, its as simple as a ref putting his hand up and thats the end of it... i think in most circumstances its pretty obviosu when someone is wasting time and when someone is going through their normal kicking routine, a routine they have spent countless hours perfecting

i would like to know the times of schifs other kicks, my guess is that they wouldnt have been much under 90 seconds, besides the ref didnt call time off so he obviously didnt think it was over 90 seconds, which indicates to me he saw no problem with the kick

Your quote

Heres my ammended rule:

You don't kick in 90 seconds, you lose the chance. Simple!!!

this is even worse than the current rule

also my shit shit is a hellava lot better than the eagles so what does that make them?

 

[Sea_Eagles_Rock]

Yeah, that the match were you flogged us with 12 men. Lucky we don't have that team anymore.

See how good your team goes with your captain off the field and his mouth shut!

Now I remember a match in the late 80's or early 90's with a similar scoreline to us and we played with 12 men. At your home ground.

If you think your going to get a run like that this year, then you will be beaten before you arrive.

 

[Raider_69]

i mean at the very least the ref should be saying "30 seconds left" with the last warning being at 15

although a visable shot clock is definatly the way to go if this is to be persuded

 

[Bengal]

I'd have thought slow kickers would've been a boon for the game.

It opens up another possible revenue stream for the game and the TV stations.
The downtime can be used to promote competitions, display on-screen ads, show replays or extra stats etc (all these annoying little things that I’d rather see during breaks in play rather than during live action).

Players also benefit because they get extra recuperation time, which hopefully allows them to run faster, think better and tackle harder.

 

[Sea_Eagles_Rock]

explain to me why the old method couldnt work, with a little refining and training for the referees, i mean how obvious is it when someone is wasting time, a ref can then go righto i think he is wasting time, time off, write it down and let a pannel sus it out latter, adding a shot clock is utter stupidity and places unnessary preasure on a kicker, its as simple as a ref putting his hand up and thats the end of it... i think in most circumstances its pretty obviosu when someone is wasting time and when someone is going through their normal kicking routine, a routine they have spent countless hours perfecting

Why do you want to waste peoples time while a shot a goal is attempted? That is what this is all about. Stopping time wasting. How cares if your kicker has to hurry. It's a shot a goal. Not a burial ritual.

i would like to know the times of schifs other kicks, my guess is that they wouldnt have been much under 90 seconds, besides the ref didnt call time off so he obviously didnt think it was over 90 seconds, which indicates to me he saw no problem with the kick

IF they were over then you he would of been fined. Wether or not it's close is pointless. If he takes too long he is going to be fined.

Your quote

Heres my ammended rule:

You don't kick in 90 seconds, you lose the chance. Simple!!!

this is even worse than the current rule

also my sh*t sh*t is a hellava lot better than the eagles so what does that make them?

Not sure what your dribbling about here... According to my stats obtained in Big League, Manly kicked at 73% while the Raiders kicked at 71% last season. Yeah your side was better. Our side ran 2nd last. But at least Manly has been in the competition a lot longer then your mob and never has won the wooden spoon. Something your proud club has won.

And I know for a fact Ben Walker didn't waste anywhere near the amount of time he should when we played your mob.

 

[skeepe]

Sea Eagles Rock - the only ones that are denying that the Sea Eagles are better off this year are the media. Stop picking fights with everyone and maybe you'll have two seconds to see that.

I rate many of your purchases this year, and think with Mick Monaghan, Andrew Walker, Jye Mullane and Daniel Heckenberg added to your squad that you'll surprise a few people.

But that's not the issue here. The issue here is kicking. The rule is stupid. You know it, and I know it. Every player should be entitled to go through their normal routines. If they are wasting time, by all mean penalise them. But if it's exactly the same thing they do time after time with every kick at goal, who are we to say sorry, not goot enough make it quicker?

 

[Raider_69]

exactly
players that have been perfecting a routine for years are now told, stiff shit you have to speed it, easier said then done

 

[Sea_Eagles_Rock]

Mate, you misunderstand. Kicking is the point of this thread. But so is wasting time. The game is popular because it is fast and fierce. Goal kicking needs to be efficient. You can't honestly say 90 seconds is not plenty of time. If the team needs to recover then they are not fit enough. Recoery is why we have an interchange system.

It's up to the kicker to improve his routine. If it was really a problem then we would have 14 kickers being fined this week. Instead we only have one. And that's why the Raiders fans are jumping up and down.

Hazem use to be slow as, but he didn't get fined. His kicks were pretty quick the other night. If he can improve and kick 100% then why can't anybody else?

As for the Manly stuff, that purely in retaliation for what is being dished out. As you can see above, I am quite happy to say we got flogged by the Raiders last year. And I have nothing personnal against their club. But I do hate Woolford. :twisted:

 

[skeepe]

I still say one of the Roosters kicks took 2 minutes... but it depends when they deem the time to have started... when the whistle is blown? Or when the kicking tee arrives?

 

[Tommy Smith]

When the rule came out, they said that there would be a time limit of 90 seconds from when a try was scored or a penalty was awarded (a bit rich I think, considering the time it takes for the kicking tee to come out and so on), and that after 90 seconds was up the referee would blow time off and the offending team would be fined.

Someone tell me when Simpkins blew time off for that kick? The NRL conveniently sticks to one part of the deal, but not the other. If they were so worried that the kick took too long, Simpkins would have blown time off once 90 seconds had expired.

Also, I was watching the clock at the Roosters-Rabbitohs game and one of the Roosters kicks took 2 minutes from when the whistle was blown. So when exactly does the time start?

Your watch must be broken because on NRL on Fox they listed the five/six kicks that took the longest and NOT ONE was by Craig Fitzgibbon.

 

[skeepe]

Tommy Smith - again this all refers to when they start the clock. I was timing from the second the ref blew the whistle. Maybe they time it from when the tee comes out, who knows?

 

[Tommy Smith]

I still say one of the Roosters kicks took 2 minutes... but it depends when they deem the time to have started... when the whistle is blown? Or when the kicking tee arrives?

Could it be that the reason you thought one of Fitzy's kicks went for two minutes was because it was the Roosters? I mean you don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to notice the anti-Rooster bias on this forum.

Fair enough if thats not the reason, but like i said, none of Fitzy's kicks were close to taking 90 seconds, let alone 2 minutes.

 

[Raider_69]

yet another problem, the rule isnt clearly defined for the average fan
no one has a f**king clue when the clock starts ticking, i wonder if even the players know

 

[Tommy Smith]

Tommy Smith - again this all refers to when they start the clock. I was timing from the second the ref blew the whistle. Maybe they time it from when the tee comes out, who knows?

I don't really know when the clock starts either. I guess the rule needs clarifying.

 

[Raider_69]

just been reported that manly were indeed very close to being fined several times
hmmmm, looks like clinton isnt the only one...

 

[skeepe]

For Hazem El Masri to kick in 25 seconds there is no way the clock starts when the whistle is blown. I'm sorry, it just can't.

 

[Raider_69]

as i said, no one knows when the f**k the clock starts
i dont think the players do either :roll:

 

[Rocks]

They should have a visible SHOT CLOCK at every ground.

Once 90 seconds elapses, the referee blows time off and the kicker is allowed to complete the kick.

However, as punishment for exceeding the time limit, instead of the opposition Kicking Off from half way, they go back to half way and get to take a tap and retain possession.

Consider Sunday's game....... Schif went over time on the last kick when he was trying to soak up the clock to kill off any remote possibility of Saints staging a last minute comeback. Would he have been so slow if he thought the Dragons would get the ball back on half way ??


You could then extend it to Line Drop Outs. 30 seconds to restart otherwise the other team gets a tap on the 20m line.

Large visible shot clocks for the fans and players to see are essential.

The problem with enforcing immediate penalties are, they're permanent. With a fine, it can be dealt with or appealed after the match. On field penalties can't be, and if it were found out that the kicker had a legitimate problem, then it's too late, the damage is already done.

The game is full of "immediate penalties". Refs make decisions about incidents that affect the course of the game all the time. Was it a drop ball or a strip - a scrum or a penalty etc etc. This is hardly at all different.

Besides, if a player has 90 seconds to kick the ball and the ref is standing right beside him, if there is a genuine problem (ie wind blowing the ball of the mound) the ref will either see it himself or the player will certainly say something and let him know. In those legitimate circumstances, as judged by the ref, the penalty doesnt apply.

With 90 seconds to kick, "legitimate problems" are going to be the rare exception, not the rule.

 

[Penelope Pittstop]

Just to clarify one question that has been asked. The money from the fine is deducted from the NRL's grant to the club. So when a team gets it's grant it is less the amount that they have incurred in fines.