Reynolds basically admits he hit the ref intentionally

[WombatEadie1]

Reynolds and Ennis are too dumb to think for themselves let alone know about a rule like that. All the Canterbury players knew the rule. That makes me strongly believe that there is only 1 person that instructed the players to practice it at training - Des Hasler. Win at all costs mentality and happy to take advantage of any situation whether in the spirit of the game or not. Aside from that, I want to see Cherry and Foran and Ballin next year chase the ref and kick it into him 5 times during a game so that the drongos (Greenberg) at NRL can see how dumb a rule it is. It is so hard getting a 40/20 just to get 6 more when all you have to do is put in a 10 metre grubber into the ref.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Now it's out in the open it will be open slather, bet it happens again in the finals if games are close.

 

[Brookie Brawler]

Reynolds and Ennis are too dumb to think for themselves let alone know about a rule like that. All the Canterbury players knew the rule. That makes me strongly believe that there is only 1 person that instructed the players to practice it at training - Des Hasler. Win at all costs mentality and happy to take advantage of any situation whether in the spirit of the game or not. Aside from that, I want to see Cherry and Foran and Ballin next year chase the ref and kick it into him 5 times during a game so that the drongos (Greenberg) at NRL can see how dumb a rule it is. It is so hard getting a 40/20 just to get 6 more when all you have to do is put in a 10 metre grubber into the ref.

Does it say in the rule book (or manual or media guide) that you have to take a legitimate shot for goal from a penalty? In Round 26 Soward was aiming for the corner with the Warriors huddled around the posts not paying attention and the ref stepped in and told him he has to have a legitimate shot.

Firstly I still doubt Reynolds kick was intentional. Maybe I will watch a replay one day and change my mind.

Secondly it wouldn't surprise me if the refs would rule differently if it was obviously intentional - hence my above question about the rule book.

Any rule that requires officials to be mind readers is a stupid rule.

 

[Brissie Kid]

Typical NRL. A week too late for Manly. No apology either.

"I got no choice" said the referees when it came to binning Starling for his love tap. Everywhere else the referees had choice they didn't give it to Manly.

Reynolds could have and should have penalised twice at the back end of the game. One for shooting offside and one for deliberately kicking ball into referee.

Fat lot of good your reminding referees does now Archer.

Players attempting to earn a repeat set by deliberately kicking the ball into the referee - rather than the in-goal - have been warned they risk conceding a penalty for misconduct.

Archer said there was no need to change the rule as there was already provision under the existing laws to issue a penalty.

"If the referee is of the opinion that a player deliberately passes or kicks the ball at an official and it hits him he can be penalised for [player] misconduct, " Archer said.

"We have reminded the referees of this section of the rules and they will apply them if necessary."

The fact that Canterbury players, particularly Josh Morris, were so quick to remind the referees of the rule interpretation only adds to the theory the ploy was deliberate. After the match, Reynolds revealed he had spoken to skipper Michael Ennis about it in the lead up to the Sea Eagles match.

"He said what a great play it is. So yeah, I'll claim it," Reynolds said. "[Cummins] put his hand up the other way. And I said no way, man, I know the rule."

However, Archer's warning means there will be significant risk for any reward should a repeat be attempted.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/kicking-into-refs-now-carries-more-risk-than-reward-20140925-10m2pg.html

And by the way NRL I thought the rule says play is not to be stopped if the ball hits the referee and play ins't affected. How was the play affected? Manly were going to get pick the ball up so it should have been play on.

 

[Ramrod]

Typical dirty cheats.

 

[globaleagle]

So....

Instead of simply changing the rule, todd says nope, the rule stands but players will be penalised if they kick at the ref deliberately.

Todd and archer have consistently said that they feel reynolds didn't kick at the ref deliberately.

This is in fact...after reynolds has happily said.....he kicked the ball at the ref deliberately!!!!!


Ok, so the nrl won't change the rule.....but somehow the same gaggle of refs who missed the offside dogs player costing manly a win, now have to be able to determine 'intent' of a players mind in regards to this type of kick!!!!!


There's a lot more "it's not his go" defence stories coming up in the near future.


Meanwhile, over here....the NFL continues without ref mistakes and another season of NHL is about to start.

This current administration certainly makes it hard for me to convince Canadians to become fans when even they are dumbfounded by the weekly incompetence.

edit: Of course this 'new' interpretation comes from toddy once his doggiez have eliminated Manly.

 

[StuBoot]

"If the referee is of the opinion that a player deliberately passes or kicks the ball at an official and it hits him he can be penalised for [player] misconduct, " Archer said.

"We have reminded the referees of this section of the rules and they will apply them if necessary."

Really??
They don't pick up intentional or unintentional forward passes, strips, knock ons, deliberate offside etc, etc what makes Archer think that they can deem if it was intentional or not?
It'd be a brave ref to pull that one out.

 

[Masked Eagle]

"If the referee is of the opinion that a player deliberately passes or kicks the ball at an official and it hits him he can be penalised for [player] misconduct, " Archer said.

"We have reminded the referees of this section of the rules and they will apply them if necessary."

Really??
They don't pick up intentional or unintentional forward passes, strips, knock ons, deliberate offside etc, etc what makes Archer think that they can deem if it was intentional or not?
It'd be a brave ref to pull that one out.

I still don't think Reynolds was deliberate. He just ain't that good. I think what they are talking about and which some commentators have ridiculously mentioned teams will start to do is the dummy half just turn around and pass it directly at the pocket ref and claim 6 again.

 

[HoldenV8]

The Grub may not have intentionally kicked the ball into the ref, but for the Scumdogs players to come running in and inform the ref of the rule it does cast doubt. They knew what was happening as soon as that ball hit him.

It might well have been a lucky shot, but I don't doubt that it had been talked about at Belmore during last week. And for that I put it squarely on Des' head. We may hate him for how it ended here after the 2011 premiership.....but Des is nobody's fool. He would know the rule book inside out.

Also, isn't Brett Kimmorley on Des' staff in some capacity or am I wrong there? Because I know about Bill Harrigan's comments about how he felt Kimmorley used to target him in an effort to get 6 again. If he used to do that to refs on a regular basis you can bet he's passed the knowledge somewhere along the line in his coaching.....

 

[globaleagle]

Meanwhile, Canterbury halfback Trent Hodkinson has been awarded the Ken Stephens medal for his work in the community at the annual One Community Awards in Sydney last night. Hodkinson puts the name of a young fan on his kicking tee, his way of lifting the spirits of a kid doing it tough with a chronic illness.

....So......he (or someone else) can write names on a kicking tee.

I'm guessing there is more to it than that....but most of the finalists did things that weren't high profile, nor had rabs crapping on about it each game.

Well done for doing something though.

Bigger well done to our finalist...Mr Lawrence!

 

[Shoe1]

Anyone got a rule book? I reckon we should have got the feed. Hodges I think came up with the ball after it hit the ref so that means we were the attacking team. If Canterbury came up with it after it hit the ref, fair enough it's their feed. I could be wrong, but what if this is another colossal blunder?

 

[mozgrame]

I have always thought Reynolds looked like the end result of an emu raping a wombat. This can't possibly be true though. I believe he wasn't born, but congealed in a gutter in front of a kebab shop.