The Greenhouse

Chicka's shoe wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 7:10 pm

Christmas Ape wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 5:57 pm I reckon it's a fair call. Sia offloads then Papa comes from left to right, running around the back of Sia causing Prior to change direction to make the tackle. It's an old fashioned shepherd.
The confusing bit was when Sutton sent it to the bunker he called Sia the "lead runner" which he clearly wasn't.

Well I'll be a monkey's uncle, hello old boy.

greeneyed wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 7:23 pm I can't see how anyone could be, given that is what the rule clearly states.

PigRickman wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 7:26 pm

greeneyed wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 7:23 pm I can't see how anyone could be, given that is what the rule clearly states.

The rule is clearly stated about the obstruction Sia got pinged for and you're obviously filthy about that, so rules kind of matter to you when it suits you, and dont at all when it doesnt.

Gerg is right, i cant recall a time advantage has been played for that long... my FIL laughed about when we were watching, he said "i like that, but im a union boy, im used to advantage going for an age"

PigRickman wrote:Credit where it's due. Gerg at least admits he'd be filthy about that call
And GE and Azz would too. They just dont have the stones to admit it.

greeneyed wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 7:34 pm

PigRickman wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 7:26 pm

greeneyed wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 7:23 pm I can't see how anyone could be, given that is what the rule clearly states.

The rule is clearly stated about the obstruction Sia got pinged for and you're obviously filthy about that, so rules kind of matter to you when it suits you, and dont at all when it doesnt.

Gerg is right, i cant recall a time advantage has been played for that long... my FIL laughed about when we were watching, he said "i like that, but im a union boy, im used to advantage going for an age"

Does it? Quote me the rule...

papabear wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 8:32 pm Also there bitching for crusher tackles was pathetic.

The if players lie down for a penalty and don’t get it and aren’t injured it should be a differential penalty the other way.

gangrenous wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 7:38 pm I’d be annoyed because it’s not generally how the game is refereed, despite the rule.

Having said that, I’d like to think through the implications a bit more but I’m open to the idea of that being the way they do it. Rugby League does have a bit of a problem with deliberate penalties when teams have a roll on. Sometimes the ref can’t win because the fans are upset he/she ignores a clear penalty, or in awarding the penalty he/she often kills a promising chance to score with the opponent on the back foot. I don’t really like union going back to infringements 3 days ago though.

I’m really torn on this one actually

PigRickman wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 8:41 pm

papabear wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 8:32 pm Also there bitching for crusher tackles was pathetic.

The if players lie down for a penalty and don’t get it and aren’t injured it should be a differential penalty the other way.

I’m not a fan when we do it either.

Same with our plodders doing a **** hit up then trying to play it four yards of the mark.

All that is just Bull that should see a turn over if possession in my book.
Not one of those were legitimate crushers.
But how much do we want to complain about that? We're pests at laying down looking for crusher calls.

gergreg wrote:While we're discussing decisions, and just stirring the pot here a little, how about that penalty 2 tackles after the late hit on Sezer. Can you imagine this place if .....

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Hazza wrote:How bout Crokes confirming he slowed down deliberately (although he would say that wouldn't he). Hate to say I told ya so but.......

gangrenous wrote:I’d be annoyed because it’s not generally how the game is refereed, despite the rule.

Having said that, I’d like to think through the implications a bit more but I’m open to the idea of that being the way they do it. Rugby League does have a bit of a problem with deliberate penalties when teams have a roll on. Sometimes the ref can’t win because the fans are upset he/she ignores a clear penalty, or in awarding the penalty he/she often kills a promising chance to score with the opponent on the back foot. I don’t really like union going back to infringements 3 days ago though.

I’m really torn on this one actually

The Rickman wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 9:14 pm

Hazza wrote:How bout Crokes confirming he slowed down deliberately (although he would say that wouldn't he). Hate to say I told ya so but.......

Is that true? Because I thought he slowed down at the time and watching it again today it certainly seemed like the case

PigRickman wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 8:13 pm

greeneyed wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 7:34 pm

PigRickman wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 7:26 pm

greeneyed wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 7:23 pm I can't see how anyone could be, given that is what the rule clearly states.

The rule is clearly stated about the obstruction Sia got pinged for and you're obviously filthy about that, so rules kind of matter to you when it suits you, and dont at all when it doesnt.

Gerg is right, i cant recall a time advantage has been played for that long... my FIL laughed about when we were watching, he said "i like that, but im a union boy, im used to advantage going for an age"

Does it? Quote me the rule...

https://www.nrl.com/siteassets/operatio ... k-2019.pdf
Page 41 explains it pretty clearly, in this circumstance, Sia is to give "right of way" to defenders coming across to make a tackle. And that means, getting the **** out of the way. Sia is allowed to slow up to receieve a pass but he's metres in front of the ball, so is not in a position to recieve a pass, therefor the onus is on him to not impede a defender.

Sia passes the ball, stops in the line, and Papalii runs around behind Sia and into the gap that Prior is unable to defend in because Sia is in his way. Nothing else from that point matters. That's text book, page 1... or as it were, page 41 of the rule book.

edit: thats page 41 of the document, it's officially page 39 of the rule book. No idea why, im sure some style experts will be able to explain

Hazza wrote:

The Rickman wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 9:14 pm

Hazza wrote:How bout Crokes confirming he slowed down deliberately (although he would say that wouldn't he). Hate to say I told ya so but.......

Is that true? Because I thought he slowed down at the time and watching it again today it certainly seemed like the case

Yeah said to 'Roaming Elliott' he had the obstruction in mind so slowed down to ensure he didn't score.

The Rickman wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 9:11 pm

gergreg wrote:While we're discussing decisions, and just stirring the pot here a little, how about that penalty 2 tackles after the late hit on Sezer. Can you imagine this place if .....

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Haha my thoughts exactly, Gerg

I hate Paul Gallen with the fire from a thousand suns, but even I had to agree with him asking the question about how long advantage is, and my first thoughts were “gee whiz, if that happened to us, Fergus and gangrenous wouldn’t sit down for a week!”

Hazza wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 9:32 pm

The Rickman wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 9:14 pm

Hazza wrote:How bout Crokes confirming he slowed down deliberately (although he would say that wouldn't he). Hate to say I told ya so but.......

Is that true? Because I thought he slowed down at the time and watching it again today it certainly seemed like the case

Yeah said to 'Roaming Elliott' he had the obstruction in mind so slowed down to ensure he didn't score.

The Rickman wrote:

gergreg wrote:While we're discussing decisions, and just stirring the pot here a little, how about that penalty 2 tackles after the late hit on Sezer. Can you imagine this place if .....

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Haha my thoughts exactly, Gerg

I hate Paul Gallen with the fire from a thousand suns, but even I had to agree with him asking the question about how long advantage is, and my first thoughts were “gee whiz, if that happened to us, Fergus and gangrenous wouldn’t sit down for a week!”

-TW- wrote:

The Rickman wrote:

gergreg wrote:While we're discussing decisions, and just stirring the pot here a little, how about that penalty 2 tackles after the late hit on Sezer. Can you imagine this place if .....

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Haha my thoughts exactly, Gerg

I hate Paul Gallen with the fire from a thousand suns, but even I had to agree with him asking the question about how long advantage is, and my first thoughts were “gee whiz, if that happened to us, Fergus and gangrenous wouldn’t sit down for a week!”

I thought to myself he makes a fair point there

Sent from my CPH1831 using Tapatalk

PigRickman wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 9:44 pm Haha no, that diagram is not EXACTLY the situation that happened on the field, if they did that the rule book would be 900000 pages long, but it covers the situation perfectly. In black and white.

Sia was supposed to run through the defensive line to ensure he wasnt impeding a defender. He didnt and he did in fact impede a defender the chance to make a tackle. Prior couldnt seriously or not seriously attempt to do anything because a player from our team, not in possession, stopped in the middle of the defensive line and prevented him the chance to make a tackle.
It's black and white. Clear cut. No ifs. No buts. No interpretations. No question.
Simple.

As i said, you're perfectly ok with ignoring the rules when it suits and then trumpet the rules, despite no known precedent that aids us when it suits. That's why you always find faults with the referees. You're OK with the rules being enforced because it's in the rule book on a situation that no one can remember happening before because that's the rules AND IT WAS TO OUR ADVANTAGE... and you want to argue the toss about a rule that is also clear as day in the rule because it hurt us.

This encapsulates things in a way that is almost too perfect. I couldnt have dreamed up a better set of scenario's to highlight your lack of objectivity, even 24 hours after the events when emotions have subsided.

The Rickman wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 9:50 pm

-TW- wrote:

The Rickman wrote:

gergreg wrote:While we're discussing decisions, and just stirring the pot here a little, how about that penalty 2 tackles after the late hit on Sezer. Can you imagine this place if .....

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Haha my thoughts exactly, Gerg

I hate Paul Gallen with the fire from a thousand suns, but even I had to agree with him asking the question about how long advantage is, and my first thoughts were “gee whiz, if that happened to us, Fergus and gangrenous wouldn’t sit down for a week!”

I thought to myself he makes a fair point there

Sent from my CPH1831 using Tapatalk

Yeah, me too

pickles wrote:I’m all for playing advantage until the end of the set for any penalty. It would make teams defending their line think twice about giving away a penalty if the team was going to get the full set as well as a penalty at the end.

That said I have never seen an advantage played for that long unless a referee was tipped off about an infringement that was missed on field.

The NRL need to do something about the way teams give away penalties when defending their line but I hardly think the second last round of the season is time to make a stand!

gergreg wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 10:08 pm

pickles wrote:I’m all for playing advantage until the end of the set for any penalty. It would make teams defending their line think twice about giving away a penalty if the team was going to get the full set as well as a penalty at the end.

That said I have never seen an advantage played for that long unless a referee was tipped off about an infringement that was missed on field.

The NRL need to do something about the way teams give away penalties when defending their line but I hardly think the second last round of the season is time to make a stand!

Totally agree Pickles, but round 24 isn't the time to start changing how the intricacies of the game are interpreted. Like I said earlier I'd be ropeable if it happens to us in the semi-finals.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

The Rickman wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 9:33 pm

Hazza wrote:

The Rickman wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 9:14 pm

Hazza wrote:How bout Crokes confirming he slowed down deliberately (although he would say that wouldn't he). Hate to say I told ya so but.......

Is that true? Because I thought he slowed down at the time and watching it again today it certainly seemed like the case

Yeah said to 'Roaming Elliott' he had the obstruction in mind so slowed down to ensure he didn't score.

Hahaha I **** KNEW it!!

In your faces afghfjfkrkkr and Billy Walker!!

greeneyed wrote:

gergreg wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 10:08 pm

pickles wrote:I’m all for playing advantage until the end of the set for any penalty. It would make teams defending their line think twice about giving away a penalty if the team was going to get the full set as well as a penalty at the end.

That said I have never seen an advantage played for that long unless a referee was tipped off about an infringement that was missed on field.

The NRL need to do something about the way teams give away penalties when defending their line but I hardly think the second last round of the season is time to make a stand!

Totally agree Pickles, but round 24 isn't the time to start changing how the intricacies of the game are interpreted. Like I said earlier I'd be ropeable if it happens to us in the semi-finals.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Hold on, the NRL hasn’t changed their interpretation of this rule. And I don’t think they should.

The rule says that in a case of foul play, which we saw on Sunday, the referees can play advantage until the end of the set and then go back if there is none. This actually a good rule, isn’t it? See if the disadvantaged team scores, if not, they go back for the penalty. You shouldn’t allow foul play to go unpenalised.

In the case of other infringements, I like the current interpretation. Limited advantage played. Once they’ve used the advantage, that’s cancelled.

No one is talking about changing the interpretation on the eve of the finals. These are the established rules and interpretations.

pickles wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 10:39 pm

greeneyed wrote:

gergreg wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 10:08 pm

pickles wrote:I’m all for playing advantage until the end of the set for any penalty. It would make teams defending their line think twice about giving away a penalty if the team was going to get the full set as well as a penalty at the end.

That said I have never seen an advantage played for that long unless a referee was tipped off about an infringement that was missed on field.

The NRL need to do something about the way teams give away penalties when defending their line but I hardly think the second last round of the season is time to make a stand!

Totally agree Pickles, but round 24 isn't the time to start changing how the intricacies of the game are interpreted. Like I said earlier I'd be ropeable if it happens to us in the semi-finals.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Hold on, the NRL hasn’t changed their interpretation of this rule. And I don’t think they should.

The rule says that in a case of foul play, which we saw on Sunday, the referees can play advantage until the end of the set and then go back if there is none. This actually a good rule, isn’t it? See if the disadvantaged team scores, if not, they go back for the penalty. You shouldn’t allow foul play to go unpenalised.

In the case of other infringements, I like the current interpretation. Limited advantage played. Once they’ve used the advantage, that’s cancelled.

No one is talking about changing the interpretation on the eve of the finals. These are the established rules and interpretations.

I’ve said I think it is good but i can’t recall a single other time when a 3 tackle advantage has been played in a similar situation. It doesn’t mean that it isn’t following the rules but to argue that’s the current interpretation is a bit far fetched.

Cranky Old Man wrote: ↑September 2, 2019, 10:41 pm Its nearly 40 years since I got my refs ticket but I don't remember the Soliola rule at all. I don't dispute that it now a rule now, or even back then. But it does seem nonsensical a bit, and I'm not whining because it went against us in this instance. I just don't believe that a player who has partaken in a passing rush and no longer has possession of the ball should have to remove himself from the vicinity of the action in order to give untrammelled access to any and all defenders however unlikely or likely they are to effect a tackle. A more sensible rule would allow him to continue in support of the play unless he has to change direction which might bring him into a blocking position against a defender.
That current rule could make it dicey for any player running too close to a dummy half who has moved forward in front of a stationary marker.

The foul play advantage i am completely happy with, I only wish it was applied more consistently. (There is that word again!)