What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Vs Manly Round 6 2024

Penrose Warrior

First Grade
Messages
8,761
Incredibly, the publicity around the Lussick suspension seemed to absolutely play in our favour on Saturday night. I think without that incident, the referee completely ignores that.

By the letter of the law, it's a penalty (apparently) but we don't want to encourage a glut of penalties around defenders making contact with kickers, if it's that light. DCE could've milked one in golden point and probably got his side a penalty, too.
 

Manu Vatuvei

Coach
Messages
16,832
There was some poetic justice in that game. After a week of justifiably complaining about the Lussick suspension, we benefit from the same rule (although I still don't understand the logic behind Lussick's offence being seen as particularly serious - but I cbf going into that again).

Also, after conspiring to lose against Melbourne while leading by 8 with under 2 minutes to go, we manage a draw from exactly the same position. Also, just like Melbourne did, we benefitted from attempting a 2-point field goal that was never likely to go over.

And to cap it all off, because we're the Warriors we didn't really get full poetic justice because it was only a draw.
 

Manu Vatuvei

Coach
Messages
16,832
By the letter of the law, it's a penalty (apparently)

It's been a rule for years that you can't dive in for a charge down and make contact with the kicker's legs. That's why (alright, I am getting into it again) I'm baffled by the Lussick ruling - because he wasn't late, and he didn't dive at the legs at all. To me it's the Lussick ruling that sets the bar at "any contact of any sort with the kicker's legs is a penalty", which I'm not sure was ever the rule, or at least the intent of the rule. The Aloiai one is more a classic "diving in" case that was specifically outlawed.
 
Messages
410
Incredibly, the publicity around the Lussick suspension seemed to absolutely play in our favour on Saturday night. I think without that incident, the referee completely ignores that.

By the letter of the law, it's a penalty (apparently) but we don't want to encourage a glut of penalties around defenders making contact with kickers, if it's that light. DCE could've milked one in golden point and probably got his side a penalty, too.
Almost guaranteed to happen unfortunately. Added to defenders looking like they've been shot whenever a decoy runner even breathes on them, and ball carriers staying down at even the hint of a high shot, crusher or hip drop... the gamesmanship is getting absurd.

More MLS than NFL-without-pads.
 
Messages
2,625
You simply don't touch the kicker. You run at them to put pressure on them on an angle but don't touch them.
Why is it hard for people to interpret the rules?
Note I do know SJ milked it but that's gamesmanship and the Sea Eagles broke the rules
Move on.
 
Messages
410
You simply don't touch the kicker. You run at them to put pressure on them on an angle but don't touch them.
Why is it hard for people to interpret the rules?
Note I do know SJ milked it but that's gamesmanship and the Sea Eagles broke the rules
Move on.

The interpretation is what appears to have changed. And the fact the sanction, whether penalty, suspension or whatever, is guided by whether the kicker is injured or stays down afterwards.

When I went back and watched that segment of Vossy interviewing SJ and they were talking about some of his old tries, the one against Cronulla was preceded by a Ryan Hoffman charge down where he clearly makes contact with the kickers legs. It wasn’t incidental contact either, Robson (I think it was) was swung around by the impact.

Have the rules on contact with the kickers legs changed that much since ’15? I don't know myself, but I'd put money on there being many more examples since then that weren't penalised only because the kicker stayed on their feet.
 
Messages
2,625
The interpretation is what appears to have changed. And the fact the sanction, whether penalty, suspension or whatever, is guided by whether the kicker is injured or stays down afterwards.

When I went back and watched that segment of Vossy interviewing SJ and they were talking about some of his old tries, the one against Cronulla was preceded by a Ryan Hoffman charge down where he clearly makes contact with the kickers legs. It wasn’t incidental contact either, Robson (I think it was) was swung around by the impact.

Have the rules on contact with the kickers legs changed that much since ’15? I don't know myself, but I'd put money on there being many more examples since then that weren't penalised only because the kicker stayed on their feet.
The official on the sidelines had their flag up before SJ fell in a 'Hollywood' manner. In that case, SJ falling down and grabbing his leg had no bearing on the penalty.
 
Messages
410
The official on the sidelines had their flag up before SJ fell in a 'Hollywood' manner. In that case, SJ falling down and grabbing his leg had no bearing on the penalty.

Touchie really called penalty as soon as he/she spotted contact? That's impressive stuff given SJ dropped immediately.

But regardless... if that's the case, then its an even stricter interpretation of the law than first thought.
 

SpaceMonkey

Immortal
Messages
38,393
The Lussick incident indicates why it’s an automatic penalty now. Making late contact with the kickers legs has the potential to cause serious injury, so it’s penalised in order to minimise the likelihood of those sort of injuries.
 

Latest posts

Top