Return of the voluntary tackle penalty

[snickers007]

So with the penalty against Herbie Farnworth last night, I'm excited to see the return of the voluntary tackle penalty! /s

Section 11. Note on Rule 4.

If the player marking the tackled player at the play-the-ball dives behind the tackled player in order to drop on the ball as it is heeled, he is guilty of a voluntary tackle and should be penalised. If there is no acting halfback it is permissible for a player to dive behind the tackled player and drop on the ball after it has been heeled provided that, unless tackled, he immediately regains his feet.

Yes, Farnworth dropped on the ball - but he was immediately tackled by Cook - which makes his actions completely legal. Yet we'll see countless players succumb to tackles when a lead runner has gone through as an obstruction, without being penalised.

Yet another example of a referee not knowing the rules of the game - or when they apply.

 

[Munky]

The dive out out of the goal line with defenders five metres away should be penalised.

Since they just lay there with no one laying a hand on them.

I have less of an issue if the defenders are right on top of them since they are making ground with contact.

 

[yobbo84]

The dive out out of the goal line with defenders five metres away should be penalised.

Since they just lay there with no one laying a hand on them.

I have less of an issue if the defenders are right on top of them since they are making ground with contact.

Agreed. The Matt Dufty special.

 

[Angry_eel]

So with the penalty against Herbie Farnworth last night, I'm excited to see the return of the voluntary tackle penalty! /s




Yes, Farnworth dropped on the ball - but he was immediately tackled by Cook - which makes his actions completely legal. Yet we'll see countless players succumb to tackles when a lead runner has gone through as an obstruction, without being penalised.

Yet another example of a referee not knowing the rules of the game - or when they apply.

I'm confused so the markers can't dive for the ball or they can't contest the ball in the ruck?

 

[mxlegend99]

I thought the referee was saying it's a special rule for diving on the ball from marker only?

That's why he was saying it's stupid. If it's just the voluntary tackle then what's stupid is enforcing it when the player never actually had an opportunity to play on.

 

[Bobby DIGital]

The dive out out of the goal line with defenders five metres away should be penalised.

Since they just lay there with no one laying a hand on them.

I have less of an issue if the defenders are right on top of them since they are making ground with contact.

Agreed. The failure to enforce that rule is a pet peeve of mine. This modern generation of players probably don't even know that rule exists.

 

[Apey]

I thought the referee was saying it's a special rule for diving on the ball from marker only?

Well, it'd be stupid in the sense that he made it up. A rule like that doesn't exist.

I think they've just been taught to penalise this, or he has seen others penalised for similar (except they were not square), so he's gone ahead and penalised this, just because he thought it must be against the rules specifically.

 

[no name]

He was penalised for diving on the ball in the ruck.
A marker has to pick it up to contest it.
Edit: the international rules of rugby league don’t apply to the NRL. The NRL make up their own rules and actual rugby league comps decide whether they follow or not.

 

[Mr Angry]

I hate the strip rule and just f**k right off with the captains challenge, they are trying to kill me with that shyte.

 

[Mr Angry]

Players drop balls, kick out on the full, refs make bad calls.

GET OVER IT!!!!!!

 

[Frailty]

He was penalised for diving on the ball in the ruck.
A marker has to pick it up to contest it.
Edit: the international rules of rugby league don’t apply to the NRL. The NRL make up their own rules and actual rugby league comps decide whether they follow or not.

It's in the ARL Laws of the Game and any variation is noted in the NRL Rules & Interpretations document.

This is specifically covered in Note 4 of Section 11:
If the player marking the tackled player at the play-the-ball dives behind the tackled player in order to drop on the ball as it is heeled, he is guilty of a voluntary tackle and should be penalised. If there is no acting halfback it is permissible for a player to dive behind the tackled player and drop on the ball after it has been heeled provided that, unless tackled, he immediately regains his feet.

Now, Atkins must have ruled that Cook was in the acting half position - to me that can be debated.

 

[yobbo84]

He was never square anyway so the point is moot.

 

[gerg]

He was penalised for diving on the ball in the ruck.
A marker has to pick it up to contest it.
Edit: the international rules of rugby league don’t apply to the NRL. The NRL make up their own rules and actual rugby league comps decide whether they follow or not.

Brandon Smith does it quite often, but he's from Melbourne... play on.

 

[snickers007]

Let me preface this with: Eels deserved to win 100%... But:

Can we compare the Farnworth penalty to the Reed Mahoney non penalty at the end of the Eels v Panthers game?

Lol.

What is a voluntary tackle?

 

[Canard]

Let me preface this with: Eels deserved to win 100%... But:

Can we compare the Farnworth penalty to the Reed Mahoney non penalty at the end of the Eels v Panthers game?

Lol.

What is a voluntary tackle?

The are completely unrelated. The penalty wasn't even remotely relates to voluntary tackle. Farnsworth is not allowed to dive in the ball in the ruck, that rule makes sense otherwise you would have markers diving for the ball constantly.

Yes Mahoney was a voluntary tackle, but they haven't called this in 20 years

 

[snickers007]

The are completely unrelated. The penalty wasn't even remotely relates to voluntary tackle. Farnsworth is not allowed to dive in the ball in the ruck, that rule makes sense otherwise you would have markers diving for the ball constantly.

Find me this rule in either the International Laws of the Game or the NRL Rules and Interpretations and then we can talk.

 

[Saxon]

Fact is the Farnsworth penalty was a stupid and pedantic application of the rule which hasn't been interpreted that way since Moses was playing fullback for Jerusalem.

 

[Canard]

Find me this rule in either the International Laws of the Game or the NRL Rules and Interpretations and then we can talk.

Found it (see below), I stand corrected on the wording of voluntary tackle, but the rule is clear and makes sense

Player marking dives on the ball

4. If the player marking the tackled player at the play-the-ball dives behind the tackled player in order to drop on the ball as it is heeled, he is guilty of a voluntary tackle and should be penalised. If there is no acting halfback it is permissible for a player to dive behind the tackled player and drop on the ball after it has been heeled provided that, unless tackled, he immediately regains his feet.

 

[kdalymc]

Found it (see below), I stand corrected on the wording of voluntary tackle, but the rule is clear and makes sense

If there is no acting halfback it is permissible for a player to dive behind the tackled player and drop on the ball after it has been heeled provided that, unless tackled, he immediately regains his feet.

so blurry tho, how do u regain your feet if youre tackled .5secs later, or they saying thats impossible if theres an acting half..?

 

[Diesel]

Haven’t seen a penalty given for a voluntary tackle since Cliffy Lyons got pinged for one in the mid-90’s