gangrenous wrote:I think they’ve ditched it because it makes it unnecessarily complicated to monitor and check. Plus there’s the issue of if the kicker is tackled/bumped then you’ve added another judgment as to whether they were sufficiently impaired from going through to run players onside.
So I think the new interpretation is good. They did a **** job of communicating to fans that it changed. It would also appear they’ve done a poor job clarifying it in the rule book.
Hahaha you’ll imaging my surprise that the NRL has somewhere in the last two decades changed a major interpretation to the offside rule, has completely **** up conveying it to the fans and has completely **** up the wording in the rule book, won’t you?
Just so very out of character for such a professional and well-run organisation
My reading of this is that if retires behind the point where Sezer kicked the ball or if Sezer runs in front of him then he can be onside. It was very close so I am happy with the call.
It also clarifies the difference between downtown which is where a player in front of the kicker can't move forward until the ball passes over them and out of play which is where a player is in front of the play of the ball and can take no part in that play.
My reading of this is that if retires behind the point where Sezer kicked the ball or if Sezer runs in front of him then he can be onside. It was very close so I am happy with the call.
It also clarifies the difference between downtown which is where a player in front of the kicker can't move forward until the ball passes over them and out of play which is where a player is in front of the play of the ball and can take no part in that play.
Ugh, now you're confusing me again, pick! Your first paragraph is how I always thought the rule is, but that means Rapana WAS onside.
But the video ref NEVER checks to see if the kicker has put the chaser onside so I think the rule just MUST have changed somewhere in the last two decades!
More than a little irony in the fact that Klein gets dropped after a game which I thought was one ofhis best yet in the last couple of months he has absolutely destroyed games by uneven refereeing and not been dropped as he should have been.
I don't rate Klein as a ref, too inconsistent, too fixated on an even penalty countwhich leads him to absolutely hammer relatively inoffensive sides late in games because he had to penalise the oppo earlier because of deliberate slowing tactics. Too easily gulled by gamesmanship etc. But now I feel a bit sorry for him getting dropped for a Sutton after one of his better games.
There can be no doubt about the reasons for the poor and declining standards of refereeing, and Annesley has not proved to be any answer, he is a politician to the bone and they almost never bring practical answers to institutional problems.
My reading of this is that if retires behind the point where Sezer kicked the ball or if Sezer runs in front of him then he can be onside. It was very close so I am happy with the call.
It also clarifies the difference between downtown which is where a player in front of the kicker can't move forward until the ball passes over them and out of play which is where a player is in front of the play of the ball and can take no part in that play.
Ugh, now you're confusing me again, pick! Your first paragraph is how I always thought the rule is, but that means Rapana WAS onside.
But the video ref NEVER checks to see if the kicker has put the chaser onside so I think the rule just MUST have changed somewhere in the last two decades!
I’d be interested in some clarification because if the only thing that needs to happen is for rapana to get behind sezer at some point before advancing then it was very close.
That said I agree that I have never seen this checked or considered. This could also be because typically in the kind of situations that lead to tries the kicker stops where they are and in this case sezer took a couple of steps forward before retreating again.
greeneyed wrote:He'd have to retire back behind the point where the kick was taken, not behind where the kicker was now standing.
That seems to disagree with this point
(d) one of his own team kicks or knocks the ball forward and takes up a position in front of him in the field of play.
So if sezer takes up a position in front of rapana in the field of play it puts him onside. Or at least that is my reading of it and this one seems to indicate that a kicker can run a player onside.
I've just read this thread through from the start, not been able to do it until now. Love how all the old posters have come out to celebrate! Almost had a tear watching the outpouring of emotion on the site after the Bateman try and the win.
The photographic evidence of the Storm being off side at the kick off prior to the more controversial touch judge call is compelling. Why didn't the NRL just come out and say... yes, there was an error, but it should have been a penalty to the Raiders on half way!
The Rickman wrote: ↑September 17, 2019, 9:42 pm
Ooooh controversy here as the foundation members of the heel stable fergrenous turn on each other just weeks away from No Way Out
Now have a look at Vunivalu's try, Tell me that it doesnt look like Chambers wasn't in front of the kicker. Tell me he wasn't within ten meters of the catch attempt.
Storm fans and every other clown in the pretend media (I'm looking at you, The Roar) can get stuffed with your idiot whatifs.
And now the more I look at it, I think Chambers was just onside and Papenhuysen wasn't.
TongueFTW wrote: ↑September 17, 2019, 7:33 am
No doubt at all Whitehead should have been binned. Croker, I am not so sure. He goes for a strip, is unsuccessful, then gets his hand caught (side note - going for a one on one strip after conceding a line break might be something to try as it slows down the play the ball considerably). Would have been harsh - though maybe they are saying that it was for not retreating 10? He retreated 8ish. Addo-Carr bombed that play regardless by not passing. I think there is some case for Vunivalu to have been binned when he hit Croker off the ball - not a try scoring situation, but we have seen those binned before, particularly if the player on the receiving end is injured.
You can pick any game apart decision by decision but each one changes the trajectory of the game so if one was different the subsequent ones might not have happened.
It’s good to finally be on the positive side of some close calls rather than having them go against us!
Both teams created a lot more chances than they finished and the storm made some uncharacteristic errors, especially the Shepard after the attacking scrum. Watching Bellamy blow up about that was hilarious!
It was by far and away the best quality game of the weekend with both teams really aiming up for the full 80.
Rewatching it I was so impressed with our response at he start of the second half. 10 full minutes without touching the ball and only conceded 2 penalty goals. 2 rubbish sets with poor kicks on the end of them and he third Wighton scoots from dummy half and makes 12 metres and gets a quick play of the ball generating momentum. We play off that pretty much from dummy half, a shift to Bateman who makes good yards and we finish the set forcing a drop out.
The ability to fight our way back into that game in that way made the difference in the end and the patience and composure to do it showed how far this team has come!
Haha Lui, I love how you started off with "I'm so sick of this "who was onside" stuff" and then proceeded to complain about Chambers being offside... fantastic stuff all-round.
The Rickman wrote:Haha Lui, I love how you started off with "I'm so sick of this "who was onside" stuff" and then proceeded to complain about Chambers being offside... fantastic stuff all-round.
The Rickman wrote:Haha Lui, I love how you started off with "I'm so sick of this "who was onside" stuff" and then proceeded to complain about Chambers being offside... fantastic stuff all-round.
I know you are but what am I
Sent from my CPH1831 using Tapatalk
hahah .. er yeah. So just who predicted a Raiders premiership first?
I know the audio has been posted, but has anyone else watched the 4 minute video (can be seen on YouTube) of the Triple M call from Saturdays game? Absolutely sensational stuff.