Manly penalised for tackling Rooster back over try line?

[Brissie Kid]

About 8 minutes to go when Gift put in a grubber kick in the north-east corner the Rooster got back into the field of play but then Manly tacklers put him back in goal. Checchin ruled a penalty. But from where I was sitting on the hill it looked like a clean one movement tackle. He hadn't yet got to ground & he hand't been lifted. Jamie complained but that really was game over for Manly.

Was the referee correct on this?

 

[susan]

Not sure but the old refs got us excuse cannot possibly be wheeled out this week.

 

[mozgrame]

I only saw it once on tv, but to me it looked like he was on the ground and was then picked up and taken back in goal. I thought it was just a brain explosion on our part.

 

[voicefromthehill]

Guilty of trying too hard, blood pumping and looking to force the issue. When it happened the commentators voices raised and the crowd gave a cheer - we criticise it with the hindsight of a penalty.

 

[mozgrame]

Blood pumping and trying too hard yes, but if you didn't cringe the moment you saw the players lift him again, you haven't seen much footy this year. That had penalty written all over it and the ref was standing right there waiting with drool running all over the whistle. Not much hindsight needed with that one.

 

[voicefromthehill]

I can only go off the commentary - I will have to take your observation

 

[StuBoot]

A recent rule ( maybe last year? ) that once a players momentum is stopped and the legs are lifted off the ground he is deemed held.
It can be a tough one in situations like that as Lyon had him and was probably getting the better of him and maybe get him back over anyway but when Gift grabbed the legs it made it a no brainer.
It's one of those rules that has it's good and bad points.

Another rule interpretation that I find odd is when the ref calls a player held and a split second later he loses the ball ( as happened last night ). He gets the ball back and plays it but in most scenarios if the tackle is complete and in the process of getting up to play the ball you lose it, it's a scrum. Weird.

 

[MadMarcus]

Can anyone clarify that rule? If you are entitled to lift but when you do it is called held then why wasn't it just a play the ball? There was no second effort or anything like that. Manly simply completed the tackle.

The Roosters got the benefit of having the play called back after their player offloaded the ball after a call of held (something I hadn't seen before). Why shouldn't the same principle apply here?

 

[StuBoot]

Can anyone clarify that rule? If you are entitled to lift but when you do it is called held then why wasn't it just a play the ball? There was no second effort or anything like that. Manly simply completed the tackle.

The Roosters got the benefit of having the play called back after their player offloaded the ball after a call of held (something I hadn't seen before). Why shouldn't the same principle apply here?

Yeah, I thought just a get up and play it would suffice as it happened so quickly so there was no time to stop the tackle.

Re the offload - as I mentioned earlier I find it odd especially in last nights instance, the Roosters play was still fighting in the tackle and obviously looking to offload when the refs called held prematurely.
There's been a few cases of it this year.
I think the idea behind it is that with crowd noise etc players could sometimes not hear the call of "held" and a penalty or scrum was deemed harsh.
As I said one of those weird rules, can only hope evens out over the year.

Like most errors or luck, it's when it happens in the game as to how important they turn out to be.

 

[Stevo]

His arse hit the ground first. Checcin made up that the picked him up to justify his decision. He was never off the ground. He was held in the field of play.