Contesting Kicks

[LeonardCohen]

I can’t work out what the commenters were so perplexed about with the Croker try yesterday. I understand the new rule but don’t see how it applies to yesterday’s context. Turbo has just as much a right to find a position to catch that ball as Tedesco. He doesn’t need to arrive at the point where the ball will land at any precise moment. He simply runs and stands where the ball will land with his eyes up and his arms out. He doesn’t need to stand away from that space and allow Tedesco first crack. I think that’s why they gave the try. The contact with Tedesco was caused when he ran in the direction of Tom to compete for the ball. He doesn’t get bumped out of the way.

Correct call. Warren Smith is obviously biased or stupid, or both.

 

[HK_Eagle]

I can’t work out what the commenters were so perplexed about with the Croker try yesterday. I understand the new rule but don’t see how it applies to yesterday’s context. Turbo has just as much a right to find a position to catch that ball as Tedesco. He doesn’t need to arrive at the point where the ball will land at any precise moment. He simply runs and stands where the ball will land with his eyes up and his arms out. He doesn’t need to stand away from that space and allow Tedesco first crack. I think that’s why they gave the try. The contact with Tedesco was caused when he ran in the direction of Tom to compete for the ball. He doesn’t get bumped out of the way.

Correct call. Warren Smith is obviously biased or stupid, or both.

IMO, 2-Stroke had a bigger influence on Tabasco going a$$ over tit anyway.

 

[frank stokes]

Agreed, Turbo got to the space and stopped as he realised he had overrun it… He did not initiate contact with Teddy but then I also agree that he blocked Tedesco from getting a fair crack at the ball (which in any other case is a penalty…
NRL has created another stupid grey area…

 

[Ben]

And who said you had to jump 6 feet in the air to contest a kick? That was Teddy‘s decision to do so.

 

[Tragic Eagle]

The way I saw it Tedesco made contact with Tom who got to the landing point of the ball first and Tedesco was trying to jump over the top of him. Tom had eyes for the ball and was within the rules. Both Alexander and Smith were wrong.

 

[stoodamire]

What about Teddys swinging arm into Talau that the commentators didn’t have a problem with.

Hate Squid James. Racist prick.

 

[LeonardCohen]

but then I also agree that he blocked Tedesco from getting a fair crack at the ball (which in any other case is a penalty…
NRL has created another stupid grey area…

How though? Turbo is allowed to occupy the space where the ball is expected to land? That’s what he did. If you watch the replay, Tesdesco deliberately stops and waits and then comes forward onto ball for the purpose of gaining height off the jump. At the point he starts running towards the ball, Turbo is already standing under where it will land, with his eyes up and hands out. That’s not illegal. Tedesco jumped and fell over his own teammate and Turbo. It would be different if Turbo arrived late and took out Teddy’s legs, but that wasn’t the case.

also, not arguing, just asking for clarification because I can’t see what Turbo was supposed to do instead. Thanks

 

[cc eagle]

The way I saw it Tedesco made contact with Tom who got to the landing point of the ball first and Tedesco was trying to jump over the top of him. Tom had eyes for the ball and was within the rules. Both Alexander and Smith were wrong.

Annesley didn't have a problem with it, Radley contacted teddy which only made it look worst for Turbo

 

[Eagle 1]

How though? Turbo is allowed to occupy the space where the ball is expected to land? That’s what he did. If you watch the replay, Tesdesco deliberately stops and waits and then comes forward onto ball for the purpose of gaining height off the jump. At the point he starts running towards the ball, Turbo is already standing under where it will land, with his eyes up and hands out. That’s not illegal. Tedesco jumped and fell over his own teammate and Turbo. It would be different if Turbo arrived late and took out Teddy’s legs, but that wasn’t the case.

also, not arguing, just asking for clarification because I can’t see what Turbo was supposed to do instead. Thanks

Blobbo the Oracle and side kick Teddy were going ape s... in the presser on this, so good to watch..lol.

 

[patorick2010]

Kick disruptors:

Annesley breaks down Tedesco/ Trbojevic mid-air contest

Graham Annesley takes a look at the mid-air contest between James Tedesco and Tom Trbojevic which lead to a Sea Eagles try in the first half at 4Pines Park

www.nrl.com

 

[patorick2010]

They're saying Turbo was contesting for the ball.

 

[frank stokes]

How though? Turbo is allowed to occupy the space where the ball is expected to land? That’s what he did. If you watch the replay, Tesdesco deliberately stops and waits and then comes forward onto ball for the purpose of gaining height off the jump. At the point he starts running towards the ball, Turbo is already standing under where it will land, with his eyes up and hands out. That’s not illegal. Tedesco jumped and fell over his own teammate and Turbo. It would be different if Turbo arrived late and took out Teddy’s legs, but that wasn’t the case.

also, not arguing, just asking for clarification because I can’t see what Turbo was supposed to do instead. Thanks

So what I am trying to say is that if a defender does that (runs to a spot between an attacker and the landing point of the ball and then stops) they are penalised for obstructing the chaser… they do not necessarily have to impact the attacker, they just have to be obstructing their ability to compete…

To be clear, I have no issue with what Tom did as he got there first and then lost track of the ball… did not seem to be deliberately impeding Teddy, more just overran the landing point…

This new rule makes it even less clear what should have been ruled in that situation tho…

 

[Uk eagle]

It's another rule that has been brought in which just adds confusion for players, referees, commentators and fans. Guaranteed there will be instances where different decisions are made and everyone will blow up and highlight yesterday's try again.

 

[LeonardCohen]

So what I am trying to say is that if a defender does that (runs to a spot between an attacker and the landing point of the ball and then stops) they are penalised for obstructing the chaser… they do not necessarily have to impact the attacker, they just have to be obstructing their ability to compete…

To be clear, I have no issue with what Tom did as he got there first and then lost track of the ball… did not seem to be deliberately impeding Teddy, more just overran the landing point…

This new rule makes it even less clear what should have been ruled in that situation tho…

I’m confused…isn’t Tom the attacker and Teddy defender? Tom is allowed to chase the kick. If he gets there early, he is waiting for the ball to come down, not obstructing the defender? He doesn’t have to move out of the way because Teddy is ‘more important’ than him? If anything, he gets rewarded for being in position to take the kick before the defender was.

You’ll have to excuse my ignorance because I honestly don’t understand how the new rule applies here.

Wait…I think I get what you’re saying…you’re referencing a hypothetical that we see often where defending teams use blockers…OK, the difference here is that Tom was always going for the ball, not attempting to get in the way of others competing for the ball…therefore the rule does not apply. Correct decision made.

 

[mave]

Blobbo the Oracle and side kick Teddy were going ape s... in the presser on this, so good to watch..lol.

If by going "ape****" in the presser, you actually mean they said....it had no bearing on the result, we were outplayed by the better side, but have seen lots of footage directly on this issue from the NRL over the off season that contradicts today's ruling, so now we are a little confused, then yeah, they went ape****.

 

[frank stokes]

Wait…I think I get what you’re saying…you’re referencing a hypothetical that we see often where defending teams use blockers…OK, the difference here is that Tom was always going for the ball, not attempting to get in the way of others competing for the ball…therefore the rule does not apply. Correct decision made.

This is my point exactly… and I agree it is play on…
… but the fact that Tom did not play at the ball creates a “block” question and the new rule just makes this whole situation (and the many many similar situations that will occur going forward) even more subjective and confusing…

 

[HK_Eagle]

This is my point exactly… and I agree it is play on…
… but the fact that Tom did not play at the ball creates a “block” question and the new rule just makes this whole situation (and the many many similar situations that will occur going forward) even more subjective and confusing…

I disagree, FS, regarding the part of not playing at the ball. At no point during his involvement from the kick to the moment it hit Tabasco’s hands, did Tom not play at the ball. He was ready to catch it in the breadbasket if T didn’t jump over him to make a play first. That’s an important difference to a player taking up space and making no genuine movement to play at the ball.

 

[frank stokes]

I disagree, FS, regarding the part of not playing at the ball. At no point during his involvement from the kick to the moment it hit Tabasco’s hands, did Tom not play at the ball. He was ready to catch it in the breadbasket if T didn’t jump over him to make a play first. That’s an important difference to a player taking up space and making no genuine movement to play at the ball.

Happy for you to disagree as I believe that this is because a further grey area has been created and that is why I hate the new rule…

Was he playing at it or had he given up making a play at it? His hands stayed down and yes he would have caught it if it landed in the “bread-basket” but was it going to or had he over-run it and taken up a blocking position?

I am not arguing that it should not have been a try, I am arguing that the new rule creates an additional layer of subjective messiness to an already rricky situation…

We may all agree the ref got it “right” on this occasion but I will wager my left nut that we will be arguing many similar instances this season where the ref gets it “wrong”…

problem being the NRL admits it is a subjective call and therefore the ref will NEVER be “wrong”…

 

[Eagle 1]

It's another rule that has been brought in which just adds confusion for players, referees, commentators and fans. Guaranteed there will be instances where different decisions are made and everyone will blow up and highlight yesterday's try again.

We should just go back to the commonsense rule and leave it up to the Refs and how they interpret it as it happens. Far as I can see Tom was watching the ball all the way and he was there first marking his spot. Teddy jumped for the ball unimpeded then got a bump on the way up from his own team mate, hence, the dramatic fall.