Rnd 1 vs Warriors

[Daneel]

Not true. All those 8 point tries that started getting awarded a couple of years back when they changed the leading with the feet rule came after the ball had been grounded.

Well you may be right but I have seen plenty of occasions where the extra kick at goal hasn't been given yet the player is put on report because the infringement happened after the try was scored

 

[Daneel]

You do realise that they count most tries as line breaks? We did NOT make 8 line breaks.

What the f*ck does that have to do with you being hard to please?

 

[forward pass]

What the f*ck does that have to do with you being hard to please?

Seriously ?

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

i think no penalty, because if it's a penalty, it's a penalty try. The only reason they gave a penalty is because the guy was bleeding.

What the refs needed to do was exercise some common sense by putting terepo on report for the tackle, and getting on with the game. By putting him on report, the warriors would have been able to sub off the guy who was hurt (if they needed to), and no penalty would have been required.

this.

 

[Daneel]

Seriously ?

Yeah seriously

 

[oldmancraigy]

We will have to disagree on that then. No doubt a bit of blood doesn't hurt the attacking teams cause in this circumstance though.

So you'd argue that Semi should have been awarded a penalty try for his 3rd one?

I don't mind if that's your view - but it probably means that 50% of all tries scored are penalty tries....

 

[oldmancraigy]

You do realise that there is a difference between a penalty try and a "possible 8 point try" right?

An 8 point try IS a penalty try.....
It just means the bloke got the ball on the ground despite foul play.

If you read the rulebook, you'll find them in the same category

There certainly are different rules in terms of tries.

Double movement being the obvious one. JH wouldn't have been penalised in the open field for what he did.

Also I've never seen a dummy half get pinged for "obstruction" after pushing past the guy playing the ball in general play, but do that in the act of scoring and it will be a penalty every day of the week.

There is no such thing as a double movement UNLESS in the act of crossing the try line. It's not a rule which gets applied differently when close to the try line. It is ONLY a rule close to the try line.
I'm not following how that helps your argument? You're saying that if someone bleeds, then there needs to be a rule that says it is automatically a penalty try? Or, if someone is about to score, you can't do a regulation tackle on them or else it's a penalty try? I'm confused as to the logic here.

Dummy half cannot touch his his own man in order to score a try. It's not a different rule when applying the same thing. He cannot use his own man as a shepherd EVER. If he were to pick the ball up, and for some inexplicable reason, barge through his own mans legs for a 1-2m gain, he would be penalized for using his man as a shepherd.
The reason you don't see it happen is because only a brain dead imbecile would try such a play in any part of the field, except 1m out from the goal line.

 

[oldmancraigy]

this.

I actually felt sorry for Debsic, he kept asking the bloke 'is that what we're doing? Is that what you want to do?' - seems he may have advised another course of action if it was just up to him...

 

[Chipmunk]

I don't think Haynes try was a double movement. Slow motion made it look much worse then what it was, in really time it looked like he just got flicked over with momentum.

I think the Video Ref's were a bit hamstrung with the Hayne Try. As the Ref called No Try on the field, they needed conclusive evidence that it was a try to be able to overall the Refs call on the field. I don't think there was conclusive evidence either way. If the Ref had awarded a Try on the field, I'm guessing the Video Ref's wouldn't have overturned it and it would have been a Try.

It looked like a double movement when he initially scored the try, so I can understand the Ref saying No Try.

 

[Chipmunk]

An 8 point try IS a penalty try.....
It just means the bloke got the ball on the ground despite foul play.

If you read the rulebook, you'll find them in the same category



There is no such thing as a double movement UNLESS in the act of crossing the try line. It's not a rule which gets applied differently when close to the try line. It is ONLY a rule close to the try line.
I'm not following how that helps your argument? You're saying that if someone bleeds, then there needs to be a rule that says it is automatically a penalty try? Or, if someone is about to score, you can't do a regulation tackle on them or else it's a penalty try? I'm confused as to the logic here.

Dummy half cannot touch his his own man in order to score a try. It's not a different rule when applying the same thing. He cannot use his own man as a shepherd EVER. If he were to pick the ball up, and for some inexplicable reason, barge through his own mans legs for a 1-2m gain, he would be penalized for using his man as a shepherd.
The reason you don't see it happen is because only a brain dead imbecile would try such a play in any part of the field, except 1m out from the goal line.

I disagree with this comment. You cannot advance the ball forward once the ball has hit the ground and your momentum has been stopped IN ANY PART OF THE FIELD. It is just that this part of the rulebook is very loosely policed and is generally only applied to tries. I don't know the exact wording in the rule book, but I am guessing there is no mention of the words "Double Movement" in the NRL rule book.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

I think the Hayne 'no try' was a 50/50 call for the on field ref....Hayne was still moving with the momentum of the tackle, but he 'accelerated' when he did the final lunge (just after he grounded the ball short of the line). Given the on field ref's call I don't think the video ref had a lot of choice.

 

[Joshuatheeel]

Happy with hayne's no try - I reckon he put some effort into putting that ball down

 

[Eels Dude]

I think the Hayne 'no try' was a 50/50 call for the on field ref....Hayne was still moving with the momentum of the tackle, but he 'accelerated' when he did the final lunge (just after he grounded the ball short of the line). Given the on field ref's call I don't think the video ref had a lot of choice.

Agree. I also think he used his elbow to push himself off the ground a bit to assist with the momentum. Anyway, we were lucky with Semi's third try. Replays showed he came up short and he looked help up once over the tryline. However as the on field ref awarded a try the video ref had to be pretty certain to change it.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

I disagree with this comment. You cannot advance the ball forward once the ball has hit the ground and your momentum has been stopped IN ANY PART OF THE FIELD. It is just that this part of the rulebook is very loosely policed and is generally only applied to tries. I don't know the exact wording in the rule book, but I am guessing there is no mention of the words "Double Movement" in the NRL rule book.

It is called a 'second movement', and the notes to Section 11 only make reference to cases where the player is near the goal line:

"When an attacking player is tackled
within easy reach of the goal line he
should be penalised if he makes a
second movement to place the ball
over, or on, the line for a try"

http://www.playrugbyleague.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/International-Laws-of-the-Game.pdf

 

[The Elephant In The room]

An 8 point try IS a penalty try.....
It just means the bloke got the ball on the ground despite foul play.

If you read the rulebook, you'll find them in the same category



There is no such thing as a double movement UNLESS in the act of crossing the try line. It's not a rule which gets applied differently when close to the try line. It is ONLY a rule close to the try line.
I'm not following how that helps your argument? You're saying that if someone bleeds, then there needs to be a rule that says it is automatically a penalty try? Or, if someone is about to score, you can't do a regulation tackle on them or else it's a penalty try? I'm confused as to the logic here.

Dummy half cannot touch his his own man in order to score a try. It's not a different rule when applying the same thing. He cannot use his own man as a shepherd EVER. If he were to pick the ball up, and for some inexplicable reason, barge through his own mans legs for a 1-2m gain, he would be penalized for using his man as a shepherd.
The reason you don't see it happen is because only a brain dead imbecile would try such a play in any part of the field, except 1m out from the goal line.

It's not the same thing. If you don't "score the try", by grounding the ball, you can't ever have a possible 8 point try. But yes it is in the same section of the rule book, probably because they are both a "try" of some description.

A double movement is effectively playing the ball off the mark, or advancing the ball after the tackle is complete. Goes unpenalised 5 times a set, unless it results in the player "scoring" which is then deemed a double movement.

You regularly see dummy halves push through/past the man playing the ball in open play (not dive through his legs). Ennis is a master of it to use the man playing the ball as a partial shepherd when he has a scoot, and it is never penalised, but it would be if he did it a metre out from the try line and scores. Both are just examples of how the rules are interpreted differently depending on whether a try is scored or not. I'd suggest general obstruction is treated differently as well (ie in terms of shepherds where you run behind a player).

Because it was a try, and because the player laid down, the video ref had a chance to look at it. And I maintain that under those same situations you will always get a possible 8 point try. You can't call what Peni did a regulation tackle because he hit him flush. It's up to the tackler to ensure that it doesn't happen, and that close to the line the attacking player is always going to dive for the line. It's not like he slipped in open play me fell into the tackle.

 

[oldmancraigy]

Because it was a try, and because the player laid down, the video ref had a chance to look at it. And I maintain that under those same situations you will always get a possible 8 point try. You can't call what Peni did a regulation tackle because he hit him flush. It's up to the tackler to ensure that it doesn't happen, and that close to the line the attacking player is always going to dive for the line. It's not like he slipped in open play me fell into the tackle.

Just wondering if you looked at the pictures I posted on (back a page or so) of his try, and Semi's 3rd?

Go back a few frames on Semi's, and he is hit high (it remains around his neck the whole time)

All I'm saying is that Terepo didn't attempt to foul, it was clumsy, put him on report and be done with it. He doesn't swing his arm over his own shoulder, he aims low (at the ball), just the bloke is falling down.
IF that is cause for penalty try, then so too every try scored where contact with the head is made.


I can't really go on arguing about it - I dunno how PouPou maintains the rage of an argument for weeks, months (even years). But he'll take up my case from here (or perhaps yours, but argue with you about it anyway?)

 

[Joely01]

Happy with hayne's no try - I reckon he put some effort into putting that ball down

Don't you normally put effort into putting the ball down? ;-)

 

[The Elephant In The room]

Just wondering if you looked at the pictures I posted on (back a page or so) of his try, and Semi's 3rd?

Go back a few frames on Semi's, and he is hit high (it remains around his neck the whole time)

All I'm saying is that Terepo didn't attempt to foul, it was clumsy, put him on report and be done with it. He doesn't swing his arm over his own shoulder, he aims low (at the ball), just the bloke is falling down.
IF that is cause for penalty try, then so too every try scored where contact with the head is made.


I can't really go on arguing about it - I dunno how PouPou maintains the rage of an argument for weeks, months (even years). But he'll take up my case from here (or perhaps yours, but argue with you about it anyway?)

Now that I can agree with you on

 

[The Elephant In The room]

Don't you normally put effort into putting the ball down? ;-)

Except when the Peach was running around for the Sharkies. Everything that man did was effortless.

 

[oldmancraigy]

Now that I can agree with you on

Perhaps he could take up both our positions and argue it out for us??