Goal Line Drop Outs

[JenEagle]

Agree, but I'm sure it was the ref who called it, the touchie was monitoring the try line, but the ref was about 4/5mts away from the 10mt line

Burton told the ref it went beyond the plane so the ref agreed and gave the dogs the ball. Seriously that’s what happened.

 

[Terry Zarsoff]

I’m glad it happened. Better we lost that game to put a spotlight on the horrendous coaching and effort than to win by some tiny margin over a dog **** (pardon the pun) team and patch over the crap job being done.

Yes you’re right. Far better to wish that your team loses, rather than hope that they win.

 

[HK_Eagle]

On the drop outs... it would be interesting to see the rule tweaked such that the dropout must touch the ground in play before anyone could touch it. That way, we could eliminate the plane BS and could make for some interesting strategic placement of kicks towards the sidelines.

 

[Spartan Eagle]

It's plain the pain in the rain is when the plane isn't slain.

 

[Bomb Voyage]

Yes you’re right. Far better to wish that your team loses, rather than hope that they win.

poor take

 

[EagleGT]

Just one question: how were the Manly players meant to know they could play at the ball?

 

[Woodsie]

Just one question: how were the Manly players meant to know they could play at the ball?

Know the rules ..

 

[EagleGT]

Know the rules ..

Sure, but unless the referee specifically calls that it has "broken the plane" then it would just be subjective from the players as to whether it has or hasn't.

 

[Ron E. Gibbs]

Yeah but ... because the ball can be caught in the air ... before it hits the ground ... breaking the plane is the only possible measure in that circumstance ...

I get that, Woodsie, and can see the point of the rule if the ball is in fact caught in the air near the 10-metre line, but what if the ball "breaks the plane" at an uncatchable height? Because if the ball did indeed break the plane last night, nobody from either team could have got near it. I hate further complicating rules that nobody (referees included) seems to understand, but maybe we'd be better off keeping the "breaks the plane" rule only if the ball is caught on the full. If it bounces short of the 10-metre line, it's then ruled a dud kick.

 

[Terry Zarsoff]

poor take

What is the ‘take’ then?

Because if your argument is they needed to lose to avoid any sense developing of papering over the cracks of a lacklustre season - my argument would be that they get that, after six straight losses before last night and are working to rectify it.

On the other hand, a win would have brought the sequence of losses to a halt, boosted everyone’s morale going into the offseason, and would have been a nice way for some departing players to finish their time at Manly.

 

[Woodsie]

Sure, but unless the referee specifically calls that it has "broken the plane" then it would just be subjective from the players as to whether it has or hasn't.

The smart ones would have watched and known ... the others like last night stood back and did nothing ..

 

[The Royal Soup]

I’m the NFL the ball can break the plain for a touch down and the NFL use camera directly in line and level with the in zone so they can be certain

but that’s just to hard for the NRL of course

 

[JenEagle]

Just a crazy decision. No brainer - it didn’t go the ten. Why the ref would rule that it did because it broke the plain of ten metres mid air and then sailed backwards is just ludicrous. It is just another example of the terrible calls we cop every week. Why a ref would even entertain a decision like that just astounds me.

 

[XV-1]

Braking the plane is a fuking stupid rule.
I mean, the ball isn’t considered dead if it ‘brakes the plane’ over the dead ball line. Or the sideline. So why for a dropout? Rule needs to be simplified and actually adjudicated on. Not what some dumb fuk touchie thinks.

They need Hawkeye just like tennis. When the ball goes over the imaginary line a big bell goes off as play on.

C'mon, what could go wrong