Ref and Bunker Decisions

[skeepe]

Random question from Warriors/Knights. 10 minutes to go and the referee awards a 6 again to the Warriors, who immediately knock on, so the referee reverts to a penalty.

I always thought when the referee calls 6 again, it's too bad if you knock on straight away and there's no union-style 'advantage'?

It depends on what the 6 again is for.

If it's for a ruck infringement, then the play being penalised is over the moment that the ball is played, so if you knock on or whatever, too bad because it's the next play. It's like if you got a penalty, took the tap and then knocked on.

If it's for offside, the play being penalised is still in progress and so a mistake during that play would mean they gained no advantage and so a penalty will be blown.

 

[Iamback]

I don’t understand why we don’t just have the same person in the bunker for all games, at least that would help with consistency.

In terms of obstruction, whilst ever players know that a black and white interpretation means they’ll get a penalty if a block runner makes contact with them, defenders will ensure contact happens in situations where they don’t think they can get there to make the tackle. We need someone in the bunker who can tell if it’s a genuine obstruction or a defender looking for an easy out. Get the same 1 or 2 people in the bunker, who have the right understanding and have them there every game.

That is my point with the black and white rule, As a defender now I am looking to contact to decoy player. Will be no try every time

 

[Captain Apollo]

'Incentive for milking': Why obstruction calls aren't black-and-white

NRL head of football Graham Annesley has warned that a return to black-and-white rulings on obstruction would encourage diving by defenders in the hope of having a try disallowed.

www.nrl.com

 

[kurt faulk]

That is my point with the black and white rule, As a defender now I am looking to contact to decoy player. Will be no try every time

As long as the decoy player runs the right line it doesn't make a difference what the defender does. He can flop all he wants, it won't be a penalty. Don't blame defenders if you're too dumb to know where to run.

.

 

[Frailty]

As long as the decoy player runs the right line it doesn't make a difference what the defender does. He can flop all he wants, it won't be a penalty. Don't blame defenders if you're too dumb to know where to run.

.

This is the part that frustrates me. I hate players milking for penalties, but if the decoy runners aren't in the way it isn't going to be called. If the bunker reviews and sees the defender change his line to make contact they don't get rewarded for it.

 

[skeepe]

This is the part that frustrates me. I hate players milking for penalties, but if the decoy runners aren't in the way it isn't going to be called. If the bunker reviews and sees the defender change his line to make contact they don't get rewarded for it.

Usually, although it's pretty clear Dylan Edwards changed his line to make contact with JWH last Thursday.

While there would have been some contact regardless, most of JWH's body was past Edwards. He changed his angle to make more contact and fall over.

 

[hrundi99]

Usually, although it's pretty clear Dylan Edwards changed his line to make contact with JWH last Thursday.

While there would have been some contact regardless, most of JWH's body was past Edwards. He changed his angle to make more contact and fall over.

It was pathetic on Edwards' part.

 

[Pjf04b]

Why did JWH stop when he was through the line? Why keep running another 5-10 metres? He was braced for a collision, he knew what he was doing!

 

[Pjf04b]

He also didn’t seem too upset with the decision other than to wave his finger!

 

[Apey]

Decoy runners aren't allowed to stop in the defensive line. They're allowed to stop in any one of the million imaginary lines after that that the fullback may be running along.

 

[ColdWetPanther]

Decoy runners aren't allowed to stop in the defensive line. They're allowed to stop in any one of the million imaginary lines after that that the fullback may be running along.

That’s not the rule though. There is no concept of the defensive line (and there definitely isn’t the concept that stopping anywhere else is legal).

Being in front of the ball is illegal if you obstruct a player.

And JWH stopped on the try line. He knew what he was doing. Could Edwards have gone around him? Probably. But if he goes around him and doesn’t get there by a split second he doesn’t get a penalty.

 

[Iamback]

That’s not the rule though. There is no concept of the defensive line (and there definitely isn’t the concept that stopping anywhere else is legal).

Being in front of the ball is illegal if you obstruct a player.

And JWH stopped on the try line. He knew what he was doing. Could Edwards have gone around him? Probably. But if he goes around him and doesn’t get there by a split second he doesn’t get a penalty.

The rules make it more of a benefit to just run into them

 

[Vee]

Big call penalising Munster for taking the ball off a bloke on the ground with no-one touching him.

 

[kurt faulk]

Big call penalising Munster for taking the ball off a bloke on the ground with no-one touching him.

As soon as a defender touches a player lying on the ground he's held. So by the time Munster stole the ball the tackle had already been completed.

.

 

[snickers007]

Big call penalising Munster for taking the ball off a bloke on the ground with no-one touching him.

Not really. If a player is on the ground with the ball, the tackle is complete as soon as an opposition player touches him.

 

[Chimp]

Not really. If a player is on the ground with the ball, the tackle is complete as soon as an opposition player touches him.

Did Munster touch the player? He appeared to only touch the ball. Does that count as the player?

 

[Frailty]

Not really. If a player is on the ground with the ball, the tackle is complete as soon as an opposition player touches him.

The amount of times player is on the ground with a player that is still touching him isn't called as held and is allowed to get up and continue running shows that's not entirely true.

Aside from that, the rule states its when the tackler places a hand on the player in possession - I'd argue he didn't place a hand on him at all.

 

[kurt faulk]

The amount of times player is on the ground with a player that is still touching him isn't called as held and is allowed to get up and continue running shows that's not entirely true.

Aside from that, the rule states its when the tackler places a hand on the player in possession - I'd argue he didn't place a hand on him at all.

That's generally when the player is still moving along the ground. If a player is lying there motionless a touch is all that's required.

It's a grey area, although it shouldn't be, and at the whim of the whatever the ref is thinking at that time.

.

 

[Frailty]

That's generally when the player is still moving along the ground. If a player is lying there motionless a touch is all that's required.

It's a grey area, although it shouldn't be, and at the whim of the whatever the ref is thinking at that time.

.

Nope, the rule says when a defending player "places a hand" on the player. A hand was never placed on the Broncos player.

 

[Big Pete]

Nope, the rule says when a defending player "places a hand" on the player. A hand was never placed on the Broncos player.

They've changed the rules.


I'm not sure if Klein called surrender on Mariner but with the way he landed you can understand why Klein felt Munster wasn't entitled to pick up the scraps and score.