What was the difference?

[simon says]

Between Slater's no try and Zillman's try.

Slater gets pinged a no try as Johnson was in the ten,he didnt interfere yet they go the lettter of the law no try.I thought it was a joke,but if the video ref plays by the letter at least you know what to expect.

Then Im watching the Raiders game,Dobson puts the ball up,Tongue metres offside heads towards the play and actually affected it as Gidley covered Tongue instead of helping get Zillman.Harsh again but if the first was a no try this was for sure.

I nearly fell off my chair when it was a try.Yet again the video refs show us they have no idea and no consistency whatsoever.

If I was a Storm fan I wold be spewing that an awesome try was pulled back,when one that transgressed far worse than their's was green lighted.

A dead set joke IMO.

 

[aero]

I think it's to make up for the 2 tries from Carney that's been disallowed the past 3 weeks. Both should have been given benefit of the doubt, especially since there was a tried allowed in the same game (manly vs canberra) where there was more doubt, and the one at the end of the 1st half last night would've been given by some refs

 

[Walt Flanigan]

There is obviously a consistancy issue in this area, however I do believe Zillman's was the right call and Slater's the wrong call.

 

[always a raider]

Yep, the video ref thought, "f**k, how many games have we raiders robbed the Raiders?, We better start to even it out!"

T R Y

 

[simon says]

And what about the obstruction rule.....if you do it in general play,going behind your player is a penalty straight up.I think its stupid but if they are going to be consistent fair enough.

But if you score a try its a 50/50 whether you get pinged.

 

[Raider_69]

There is obviously a consistancy issue in this area, however I do believe Zillman's was the right call and Slater's the wrong call.

what he said
baffling inconsistancys but i think they got it right last night, and slatter was gipped

 

[The Tank]

Going by the rules, the Zillman try should not have been awarded.

 

[simon says]

Going by the rules, the Zillman try should not have been awarded.

If any I think the Slater incidnet was closer to a try than the Zillman one as Tongue did play a part in the try......Johnson was no where.

By the letter of the law both should have backed away and both would have been clear cut tries.

Neither did.....both moved into the ten metres and by the law neither should have been given.

 

[God-King Dean]

Offside is offside IMO, & it's been the 10m radius rule for a while now, & if players are too lazy to get out of the way when they know they are offside, stiff sh*t, penalty.

Video refs consistency is their inconsistency. The home team usually get the rub of the green.

 

[CharlieF]

The ARL Rules state:

"Any off side player who remains within ten metres of an opponent who is set to catch a kick up field by an opposing player shall be deemed to be interfering with or attempting to interfere with the catcher and shall be penalised unless the non-offending team gains an immediate advantage."

I guess the video ref assumed the ball was not being contested by the defending team at any point as Zillman had caught it before any Newcastle player could contest it. There might be some other rule covering this. I couldn't find it though, just the rule above.

Link: http://files.arlfoundation.com/laws/internationallaws.pdf

 

[Raider_69]

interesting take on it charlieF

 

[simon says]

The ARL Rules state:

"Any off side player who remains within ten metres of an opponent who is set to catch a kick up field by an opposing player shall be deemed to be interfering with or attempting to interfere with the catcher and shall be penalised unless the non-offending team gains an immediate advantage."

I guess the video ref assumed the ball was not being contested by the defending team at any point as Zillman had caught it before any Newcastle player could contest it. There might be some other rule covering this. I couldn't find it though, just the rule above.

Link: http://files.arlfoundation.com/laws/internationallaws.pdf

But.......Tongue was definitely involved in the play.By him chasing he took Gidley away from chasing Zilman,which made it a one on one play.IMO if Tongue stays out then Gidley would have followed and had a chance to get Zillman when he stepped Thaiday.

 

[Walt Flanigan]

Your gonna see a hundred of these go either way all season. One of the NRL's many grey areas.

 

[God-King Dean]

"Any off side player who remains within ten metres of an opponent who is set to catch a kick up field by an opposing player shall be deemed to be interfering with or attempting to interfere with the catcher and shall be penalised unless the non-offending team gains an immediate advantage."

Interesting... I've always been under the impression that's it's simply 10 metres & that's all.

You could imterpret this a few ways. You could make a case for any man chasing within the 10 metres is contesting for the ball. On the other hand you could not... definitly a grey area.

 

[perverse]

i don't think there's anything grey about the rule.. what is grey is the enforcement of the rule. it's simple, if you're in front of the kicker - you stay 10+ metres away from the play, otherwise you're involved in the play in an offside position... which = a penalty. as far as i'm aware this has always been thusly. i couldn't believe the zillman try was allowed after billy was denied.

 

[Misanthrope]

Although Zillman got to it on the full and Tongue made no obvious play for the ball, I think the rule is there to cover a situation where Zillman didn't get to the ball - in which case Tongue or Zillman could have contested it and made the fullback's job even harder.

Zillman getting to it on the full is one thing, but I don't doubt that Tongue also chasing it through would have influenced the defensive decision of Kurt Gidley.

 

[CharlieF]

Although Zillman got to it on the full and Tongue made no obvious play for the ball, I think the rule is there to cover a situation where Zillman didn't get to the ball - in which case Tongue or Zillman could have contested it and made the fullback's job even harder.

Zillman getting to it on the full is one thing, but I don't doubt that Tongue also chasing it through would have influenced the defensive decision of Kurt Gidley.

There is another rule:

An off side player shall not take any part in the game or attempt in any way to influence the course of the game. He shall not encroach within ten metres of an
opponent who is waiting for the ball and shall immediately retire ten metres from any opponent who first secures possession of the ball.​

The rule is definetly open to different interpretations.

 

[perverse]

There is another rule:

An off side player shall not take any part in the game or attempt in any way to influence the course of the game. He shall not encroach within ten metres of an
opponent who is waiting for the ball and shall immediately retire ten metres from any opponent who first secures possession of the ball.​

The rule is definetly open to different interpretations.

actually that rule isn't open to any interpretations... that is terribly worded and only addresses a severe minority of issues that can arise from a player being in an offside position. is that the way it reads in the official rules?

 

[Molly]

The rule applied correctly means both are no trys. However, the confusing thing for me is that the kicker cannot put a player onside as in the no try to geyer v tigers. Inglis kicked and retreived and offloaded, however as King i thik it was, was in front of Inglis and inside the ten at the point of regathering, the try was disallowed for him being off side. That makes no sense to me.

 

[Inferno]

The rule applied correctly means both are no trys. However, the confusing thing for me is that the kicker cannot put a player onside as in the no try to geyer v tigers. Inglis kicked and retreived and offloaded, however as King i thik it was, was in front of Inglis and inside the ten at the point of regathering, the try was disallowed for him being off side. That makes no sense to me.

Really? I was always under the impression that the kicker could put the whole team onside by running ahead of them.