The Bunker

[Timmah]

And you're arguing til you're blue in the face about something that's case closed, ruled on, over, done with.

 

[Card Shark]

Arguing against the sad state of the game, or part thereof...worth arguing about?

 

[carcharias]

And you're arguing til you're blue in the face about something that's case closed, ruled on, over, done with.

Well if you and the other idiot would admit you are wrong then I'd drop it.

Got those rules yet?

 

[Timmah]

 

[RL The greatest game]

The single worst bunker decision this season. And that's coming from a bona fide Broncos hater.

'Technically' the bunker could call every try a no try because 90% of player still don't play the ball correctly.

I agree with replays with no slo mo. I actually miss the days pre video ref. Watching old games it's amazing how many times a ref got it right.

25 camera angles and the bunker still gets them wrong.

I think the Bunker has turned into an embarrassment for the NRL, and don't start me on Tony Archer the worst referee i ever see at international level, and off course he always backs the bunker.

 

[RL The greatest game]

so we've gone from 1 ref to having a room full of them

where will it end ?

And they still can't get it right.

 

[Bronxnation]

so just to confirm. do we hate the bunker or luke pattern?/the person in the bunker

 

[El Diablo]

it's Sutton that stuffs up the most

 

[unforgiven]

Well if you and the other idiot would admit you are wrong then I'd drop it.

Got those rules yet?

The arm carrying the ball is a way for the tackle to be completed.

Grounded
a. ‘when he is held by one or more opposing players and the ball or the hand or arm holding the ball comes into
contact with the ground.’


http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjss8fm3Z3OAhUGi5QKHeRDCysQFggaMAA&url=https://www.nrl.com/portals/nrl/RadEditor/Documents/NRL15_1651%20NRL%20Laws%20%20Interpretations_A4_Brochure_FA_2_Proof.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHht1Ii1i_BF4xtxduCDZS0SK2wuA

Now I'm sure you are going to state that is not in the double movement section, it is however in tbe section about a completed tackle. A double movement is a second effort after the tackle is completed. So it applies to the situation we are talking about.

I actually believe it should have been awarded a try as the double movement sections states that a player can make another effort if momentum carries him to the ingoal area and I believe that happened in this instance.

 

[Rabbits20]

Decisions like that are why I desperately want the Sharks to win this year, so I can walk away from the game.

It's just over officiated & misunderstood by the officials.

I don't really blame the refs, they are following instructions but the hierarchy needs to have a long, hard look at what they are instigating.

Give me a go in the bunker. If the ref thinks it's a try, I'll bloody well give it, unless it's obviously not. I'll have 5 looks maximum, 2 of which is in normal speed (3 of 5 for a double movement).

I'll also give the ref the option to say "I wasn't quite in a position to see it, please decide for us".

Stop denying bloody tries that have been tries for 100 years!

The top 2 lines of your post make me laugh lol.

 

[carcharias]

The arm carrying the ball is a way for the tackle to be completed.

Grounded
a. ‘when he is held by one or more opposing players and the ball or the hand or arm holding the ball comes into
contact with the ground.’


http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjss8fm3Z3OAhUGi5QKHeRDCysQFggaMAA&url=https://www.nrl.com/portals/nrl/RadEditor/Documents/NRL15_1651%20NRL%20Laws%20%20Interpretations_A4_Brochure_FA_2_Proof.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHht1Ii1i_BF4xtxduCDZS0SK2wuA

Now I'm sure you are going to state that is not in the double movement section, it is however in tbe section about a completed tackle. A double movement is a second effort after the tackle is completed. So it applies to the situation we are talking about.

I actually believe it should have been awarded a try as the double movement sections states that a player can make another effort if momentum carries him to the ingoal area and I believe that happened in this instance.

Yeah well
He was still getting tackled and he was still in the momentum of spinning over .
So the arm wasn't grounded as per the rules.
It wasn't even grounded IMO
If it was they wouldn't have taken ten minutes and freeze framed zoomed in pics to work it out.

Anyway.
The refs got it wrong
They won't admit it... They rarely do.
We all know it

 

[Card Shark]

The top 2 lines of your post make me laugh lol.

The game's not what it used to be & if I didn't love my team so much, I'd probably have bugger-all interest in it. There is still plenty of good but there is a lot more disillusioning bad.

If we ever win, I've ticked a box & it won't matter so much but I'm not giving up on them until we do.

 

[unforgiven]

He wasnt in the process of getting tackled. The rule states a tackle is completed when the arm carrying the football contacts the ground. The only reason it should have been a try is that they have added to the interpretation that if momentum carries you to the ingoal then it will be a try regardless of the second effort.

It should have been a try under current rules but it is no where near as clear cut as most people believe and for a long time would have been a no try.

 

[carcharias]

Looked like a tackle to me.
The 2 blokes wrestling him to the ground gave it away.

 

[shaggs]

Carch, they were both no tries. As soon as the arm was extended it was done. Both players need to keep the ball carrying arm in against their body. If the hand holding the ball was extending/straight when first tackled then it could have stayed in that position.

As for all the obstruction rulings. f**k knows what will happen. The whole sport the past 10 years has been built on trying to obstruct the defence, without giving away a penalty. Block play after block play is shit

 

[Captain Apollo]

Can one of you blokes who reckon it was a try please show me in the rules for double moment where it mentions
1) sliding
2) ball carrying arm touching the ground =tackled

Certainly. The current laws of the game , Section 6, Law 3 (c) on page 12 of the rule book states -

Sliding try

(c) a tackled player’s momentum carries him into the
opponents’ in-goal where he grounds the ball even if the ball has first touched the ground in the field of play but provided that when the ball crosses the goal line the player is not in touch or touch in-goal or on or over the dead ball line.

As to the tackle, I refer you to Section 11, Rule 2 (a) on page 23 which states -

When tackled:

2. A player in possession is tackled:


Grounded
(a) when he is held by one or more opposing players and the ball or the hand or arm holding the ball comes into contact with the ground.

Further, I refer you to Section 11, Law 5 on page 24 which states -

Sliding tackle
5. If a tackled player, because of his momentum slides
along the ground, the tackle is deemed to have been effected where his slide ends. (See Section 6, 3(c).)

Finally, and most importantly is the notes to the laws on page 24 which relate to double movements. They state -

Second movement
after tackle

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.

If an attacking player in possession is brought down near the goal line and the ball is not grounded it is permissible to place the ball over, or on, the line for a try. In this case, the tackle has not been completed.

There are diagrams which go with the notes, but as the source is a PDF file, they won't copy.

Hope that is of some help to you.

 

[carcharias]

That is all nice but he was dragged across the tryline.
There is no section for that in there
He had never stopped moving .
He didn't stop dead and then reach out.
He was well over the try line when he reached out...which is not a penalty anyway.
If the tackle is completed when his elbow brushed a blade grass then the tacklers should have been penalised for dragging him across the line wouldn't you think?

If anything they should maybe look at saying no try...but no penalty for non blatant double movements.
Like being held up and being made to play the ball.

Because calling that double movement is bullshit.

 

[Timmah]

That is all nice but he was dragged across the tryline.
There is no section for that in there
He had never stopped moving .
He didn't stop dead and then reach out.
He was well over the try line when he reached out...which is not a penalty anyway.
If the tackle is completed when his elbow brushed a blade grass then the tacklers should have been penalised for dragging him across the line wouldn't you think?

If anything they should maybe look at saying no try...but no penalty for non blatant double movements.
Like being held up and being made to play the ball.

Because calling that double movement is bullshit.

He was dragged across the tryline on his bag after his arm contacted the ground. His second effort was what was penalised - he promoted the ball after the tackle, according to current rules, was effected.

I actually agree re: the penalty side of things, it should be the same as held-up, go back and play the ball; or, if you have to penalise it, make it tap-only rather than a kick for touch penalty.

 

[carcharias]

dragged in .

 

[Captain Apollo]

dragged in .

Yeah, Napa and Ferguson dragged his ball carrying arm away from his body and into the in goal and onto the ground