In goal grounding

  • We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.

Napper

Bencher
How about this

How about a way of letting the ref know it was an accident.

For instance, last night taufua grounds it unintentionally so when he gets up say for instance he pats his head twice to play on.

If he does this he has then taken advantage and say he gets dragged back in goal, bad luck for him, he took advantage.

This way the attacking team is not getting screwed for slipping over when the defence is 30m away.

It could be a pat on the head, quick tap on the foot at the tryline, anything to let the ref know you wish to play on.
 
Why not just get up and run if you want to play on, or lay there if you don't?

Cowboys were not disadvantaged by that ruling at all. Manly dropped the ball a couple of tackles later and the Cowboys had the scrum feed near halfway, which is close to where they would have fielded any drop out anyway.
 
I reckon seven pats on the head if you want to play on, 8 if you want to claim the grounding.
 
I wonder if Steve Roach was trying to tell the ref he wanted to play on when he patted the ref on the head?
 
Ian Martin tragic said:
If you ground the ball, it should be a dropout. Accidentally or not.

g'day all,why is it now considered that when a bloke slips over while fielding a ball in goal it should be an automatic grounding?Never used to be especially when the defence is still a distance away.Surely a simple interpretation is that if he gets up to play on it is play on is all thats required.
cheers mike
 
Bowen did it in the first half and got the same call do their point is completely moot
 
Daniel said:
Bowen did it in the first half and got the same call do their point is completely moot

That's was different.

He had a blue jersey on. Pay attention please.
 
Daniel said:
Bowen did it in the first half and got the same call do their point is completely moot

Correct. That was at 15:42 on the clock that Bowen did that. The situation was exactly the same.
 
Jethro said:
Daniel said:
Bowen did it in the first half and got the same call do their point is completely moot

Correct. That was at 15:42 on the clock that Bowen did that. The situation was exactly the same.

And Jamie Lyon questioned it to the referee like Thurston did. Actually not like Thurston did...... Jamie didn't carry on like an eight year old girl when he asked the question.
 
The rule should be any grounding of the ball when the opposition has one player within the in-goal area should be a drop-out.

Any grounding that takes place without any opposition player in the in-goal it is play on.
 
meh, i agree with the intention rule.

a pity ch 9 still dont get this even after it was explained to them a few weeks ago.
 
bones said:
Jethro said:
Daniel said:
Bowen did it in the first half and got the same call do their point is completely moot

Correct. That was at 15:42 on the clock that Bowen did that. The situation was exactly the same.

And Jamie Lyon questioned it to the referee like Thurston did. Actually not like Thurston did...... Jamie didn't carry on like an eight year old girl when he asked the question.

My 8 year old daughter wouldn't even carry on like Thurston!
 
So if the rule where to be if the ball is grounded at all in the in goal it should be a drop out, would that mean if the ball is rolling and not bouncing the player cant pick it up with technically grounding it?

Keep it as it is.
 
Kiwi Eagle said:
How about the players use Robbo as inspiration and if they want to play on get the helicopter out

Because KE, not all players are built like Robbo, you and I. I'm not sure exactly how far the video ref can zoom.
 
Lennox Local said:
bones said:
Jethro said:
Daniel said:
Bowen did it in the first half and got the same call do their point is completely moot

Correct. That was at 15:42 on the clock that Bowen did that. The situation was exactly the same.

And Jamie Lyon questioned it to the referee like Thurston did. Actually not like Thurston did...... Jamie didn't carry on like an eight year old girl when he asked the question.

My 8 year old daughter wouldn't even carry on like Thurston!

My 8 year old daughter is a gem. Decent netballer too.
 
TonganEagle said:
So if the rule where to be if the ball is grounded at all in the in goal it should be a drop out, would that mean if the ball is rolling and not bouncing the player cant pick it up with technically grounding it?

Keep it as it is.

Picking up a rolling ball is not grounding, all i'm saying is the intention rule alone in itself is open to more interpretation a little more so than what i feel it should be.

You can still use the intention method within what i devised I'm just trying to simplify the process when no opposing player is in the in-goal.

I have not viewed the Taufua incident a second time but i don't recall seeing a Cowboys player in the in-goal when he slightly fumbled the ball in a downward motion. It would not even be up for discussion if the extension to the rule i suggested was added as you can't ground the ball with no opposing players in the in-goal it simplifies the rule in this instance---it should not even require the "intention method" to deliver an outcome.

The intention method comes into play when working out if a try has been scored or a defending player has grounded the ball stopping a try in most instances(if not all) and should not have to be used in cases like what happened to Taufau.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
3 3 0 48 6
3 2 1 45 4
3 2 1 28 4
3 2 1 22 4
3 2 1 15 4
3 2 1 14 4
2 1 1 13 4
3 2 1 10 4
2 1 1 6 4
3 2 1 -3 4
3 1 2 0 2
3 1 2 -5 2
3 1 2 -15 2
3 1 2 -22 2
3 1 2 -36 2
2 0 2 -56 2
3 0 3 -64 0
Back
Top Bottom