NRL Referees

[snake77]

So @inruin, can we explain the NAS elbow to the face that knocked Egan’s teeth out again?

No pressure ruling wasn’t it? The teeth fell out on their own?

Just so we know the difference between that and a ferocious Sifakula shirt grab that’s a send off

His jaw got in the way of his elbow. Back at school people's heads used to get in the way of people's fists all the time.

According to the NRL the school teachers ruled this the wrong way making the guy that through the punch stay after school or do detention.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

His jaw got in the way of his elbow. Back at school people's heads used to get in the way of people's fists all the time.

According to the NRL the school teachers ruled this the wrong way making the guy that through the punch stay after school or do detention.

On the biting, I did legitimately hear his arm was in his mouth and he felt he couldn’t breathe

Must of forgotten he has a nose!

 

[Beastmode]

Is it? The referee thread appears to me to be about bias and individual refs. I would like a thread that is separate to that and discusses rules and interpretations, particularly on contentious issues - like the CNK tackle or even things that need clarifying like offside from kicks. I know posters like @Lance155 appreciate not having to go through post game threads clogged up with things like these and it makes sense to put them in a place where they can be discussed and clarified without derailing a thread. It also allows people to steer clear if it isn't something they want to read or be involved in.

You’re a laugh mate

It’s not about me

I’m new to league and want to learn

You can erase my name from the title

 

[Inruin]

You’re a laugh mate

It’s not about me

I’m new to league and want to learn

You can erase my name from the title

All good, no harm intended. It looks like we cant have a thread to discuss the rules and interpretations separately to Refs and perceived bias. Not sure how having a separate thread for the CNK tackle was different but so be it.

 

[Defence]

Slightly different angle but here's a couple of rules id like to see changed.

1) Its not a knock on till it hits the ground. For example- when 2 players contest the ball in the air and they go back and freeze frame it a hundred times to see if it brushed old mates finger a fraction of a second in between the other player losing grasp of it before regaining it a millisecond later. Who cares- its a contest and whoever comes down with it wins. taking out that one rule would halve the amount of time the video refs spend analyzing tries.

2) If a short kick off doesn't travel the 10 the receiving team should be able to grab it whenever they want- its ridiculous watching them all stand round waiting for it to come to a dead standstill. If they want to leave it and take the penalty fair enough but if they see more benefit in picking it up and having a crack at the line why shouldn't they be allowed to take that advantage?

open to feedback....

 

[Inruin]

Slightly different angle but here's a couple of rules id like to see changed.

1) Its not a knock on till it hits the ground. For example- when 2 players contest the ball in the air and they go back and freeze frame it a hundred times to see if it brushed old mates finger a fraction of a second in between the other player losing grasp of it before regaining it a millisecond later. Who cares- its a contest and whoever comes down with it wins. taking out that one rule would halve the amount of time the video refs spend analyzing tries.

2) If a short kick off doesn't travel the 10 the receiving team should be able to grab it whenever they want- its ridiculous watching them all stand round waiting for it to come to a dead standstill. If they want to leave it and take the penalty fair enough but if they see more benefit in picking it up and having a crack at the line why shouldn't they be allowed to take that advantage?

open to feedback....

I don't like the first suggestion. Its either a knock on or its not. I get the time taken to review but the rule works. If a player loses the ball forward in a tackle hitting the opposition player but you regather it before it hits the ground, is it play on? is it 6 again?

Second suggestion I like. I cant understand why that isn't the case. I cant think of a scenario where it would be able to be taken advantage of by the team receiving the ball that would disadvantage the team kicking it. Ie gaming the rule.

 

[Defence]

I don't like the first suggestion. Its either a knock on or its not. I get the time taken to review but the rule works. If a player loses the ball forward in a tackle hitting the opposition player but you regather it before it hits the ground, is it play on? is it 6 again?

Play on- if u bobble the ball in contact and regain it good for u- if u drop it- i.e. it hits the ground- that's a different story.
I wouldn't agree that it works the way it is- leads to a lot of contentious decisions and just slows the game down too much for my liking.

 

[Inruin]

Play on- if u bobble the ball in contact and regain it good for u- if u drop it- i.e. it hits the ground- that's a different story.
I wouldn't agree that it works the way it is- leads to a lot of contentious decisions and just slows the game down too much for my liking.

what about if a player knocks it on in to an opposition player and your team mate regathers it before it hits the ground? is that play on?

 

[Defence]

what about if a player knocks it on in to an opposition player and your team mate regathers it before it hits the ground? is that play on?

No id say it has to be the same player regathering.

 

[Inruin]

No id say it has to be the same player regathering.

interesting suggestion. Personally I would hate to see it introduced.

 

[Defence]

interesting suggestion. Personally I would hate to see it introduced.

Would be interesting to get the refs feedback- whether it would make their job easier or harder.
Id like to see it trialed at least- in fact my memory might be betraying me but im sure that was the way it was when I was coming through the junior grades....

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Slightly different angle but here's a couple of rules id like to see changed.

1) Its not a knock on till it hits the ground. For example- when 2 players contest the ball in the air and they go back and freeze frame it a hundred times to see if it brushed old mates finger a fraction of a second in between the other player losing grasp of it before regaining it a millisecond later. Who cares- its a contest and whoever comes down with it wins. taking out that one rule would halve the amount of time the video refs spend analyzing tries.

2) If a short kick off doesn't travel the 10 the receiving team should be able to grab it whenever they want- its ridiculous watching them all stand round waiting for it to come to a dead standstill. If they want to leave it and take the penalty fair enough but if they see more benefit in picking it up and having a crack at the line why shouldn't they be allowed to take that advantage?

open to feedback....

1 - I can see a case where you can’t knock it on until you have it under control - eg a finger tip while contesting wouldn’t be a knock on. Would need to think it through. But potential for abused where players ‘accidentally’ bat the ball forward???

2 - agree

 

[Beastmode]

Only a kicker can put players on side is a puzzling rule… yawnion has it right where players behind the kicker can put everyone else onside if they travel with in the 10 first

 

[Defence]

1 - I can see a case where you can’t knock it on until you have it under control - eg a finger tip while contesting wouldn’t be a knock on. Would need to think it through. But potential for abused where players ‘accidentally’ bat the ball forward???

2 - agree

No I wouldn’t change that- if it’s deemed intentional.
That would stay the same.

 

[JustVisiting82]

If a short kick off doesn't travel the 10 the receiving team should be able to grab it whenever they want- its ridiculous watching them all stand round waiting for it to come to a dead standstill. If they want to leave it and take the penalty fair enough but if they see more benefit in picking it up and having a crack at the line why shouldn't they be allowed to take that advantage?

I know it looks silly seeing both sides hover over the ball unable to touch it when it hasn't gone 10 metres but I've decided I actually think the current rule is the least bad option.
With your suggestion it just doesn't sit well with me that you'd have one team who can play at the ball and one team who can't regardless of having been onside at the kick (yeah I know their kicker was at fault for not kicking it 10 metres but I still don't like it).
I tried to think of another solution, e.g. recieving player touching the ball inside the 10 metres stops play but their team doesn't get penalised (I had a couple of variations of this idea in mind) but found issues with this too so I 'd just stick with the current silliness.

 

[Ref]

Slightly different angle but here's a couple of rules id like to see changed.

1) Its not a knock on till it hits the ground. For example- when 2 players contest the ball in the air and they go back and freeze frame it a hundred times to see if it brushed old mates finger a fraction of a second in between the other player losing grasp of it before regaining it a millisecond later. Who cares- its a contest and whoever comes down with it wins. taking out that one rule would halve the amount of time the video refs spend analyzing tries.

2) If a short kick off doesn't travel the 10 the receiving team should be able to grab it whenever they want- its ridiculous watching them all stand round waiting for it to come to a dead standstill. If they want to leave it and take the penalty fair enough but if they see more benefit in picking it up and having a crack at the line why shouldn't they be allowed to take that advantage?

open to feedback....

1- Don’t mind it. You could call it a neutral ball while it’s being contested simultaneously.

2- No reason to change it. I know it’s odd.

 

[Ref]

A tough call to make for a referee is how did a ball come out during a tackle. Was it stripped or was it lost. If the referee does not know I reckon the attacking team just plays the ball and we carry on with the set. A lot of those are a guess and if you don’t have official touch judges you are guaranteed to get some wrong each game.

 

[JustVisiting82]

A tough call to make for a referee is how did a ball come out during a tackle. Was it stripped or was it lost. If the referee does not know I reckon the attacking team just plays the ball and we carry on with the set. A lot of those are a guess and if you don’t have official touch judges you are guaranteed to get some wrong each game.

I think I like this one or at least would be interested in seeing if it worked in practice. There are always a few of these where it feels like the ref is basically forced to pick a team to rule against despite it being a 50/50 call.

 

[Defence]

I know it looks silly seeing both sides hover over the ball unable to touch it when it hasn't gone 10 metres but I've decided I actually think the current rule is the least bad option.
With your suggestion it just doesn't sit well with me that you'd have one team who can play at the ball and one team who can't regardless of having been onside at the kick (yeah I know their kicker was at fault for not kicking it 10 metres but I still don't like it).
I tried to think of another solution, e.g. recieving player touching the ball inside the 10 metres stops play but their team doesn't get penalised (I had a couple of variations of this idea in mind) but found issues with this too so I 'd just stick with the current silliness.

Yeah….. you’ve almost convinced me….
What do they do in union?

 

[JustVisiting82]

Yeah….. you’ve almost convinced me….
What do they do in union?

Good question, I'm not sure of the answer though.