Game Day: Manly v Parramatta [Round 10, 2020]

[SeaEagleRock8]

The Worms fans are clutching at straws.

Blowing up that this should have been an 8 point try.

View attachment 14905

Big deal they would have needed an 11 point try to make a difference and there is no such thing, so haha sucked in front-running show-boating false-favourite Eels.

 

[Will on the hill]

Big deal they would have needed an 11 point try to make a difference and there is no such thing, so haha sucked in front-running show-boating false-favourite Eels.

We were only up by 8 and that was definitely close, thank god it didn't get sent to the bunker.

 

[Ron E. Gibbs]

How much contact with the ball is a defender allowed to have? Don't believe the are any rules around this. Only rules around stripping, include the word deliberate. On the video evidence you'd have to be a mind reader to tell what his intentions were. I can see the argument for both sides, just don't see it as clear cut.

Yes, but as Dan points out above, whether he was intending to offload it or not makes no difference to the proper application of the rule. If there's more than one defender in the tackle, you can't go for the ball unless (and only unless) the guy is trying to ground the ball for a try. Talk of "loose carry" and intention (it's not the criminal law, FFS) just muddies the waters. If it was any player other than Tapau, who's known for his offload, it wouldn't have even come up. I also think the only reason Marty changed the position of his arms was because there was a third Eels player coming over the top who was also trying to get at the ball. The way I see it, he was actually trying to bring the ball in closer to his body to protect it when Blake took it away. Really, it's just a **** call, and if that sets a precedent in the NRL, look out.

 

[Terry Zarsoff]

The Worms fans are clutching at straws.

Blowing up that this should have been an 8 point try.

View attachment 14905

 

[Dion Johnson]

We were only up by 8 and that was definitely close, thank god it didn't get sent to the bunker.

It does not look the best, Elliot does not have foul play in his game purely unintentional, looks worse on that shot then at General play.

 

[Will on the hill]

Yes, but as Dan points out above, whether he was intending to offload it or not makes no difference to the proper application of the rule. If there's more than one defender in the tackle, you can't go for the ball unless (and only unless) the guy is trying to ground the ball for a try. Talk of "loose carry" and intention (it's not the criminal law, FFS) just muddies the waters. If it was any player other than Tapau, who's known for his offload, it wouldn't have even come up. I also think the only reason Marty changed the position of his arms was because there was a third Eels player coming over the top who was also trying to get at the ball. The way I see it, he was actually trying to bring the ball in closer to his body to protect it when Blake took it away. Really, it's just a **** call, and if that sets a precedent in the NRL, look out.

Even if Marty wasn't trying to offload, he had the ball cuffed between his hand and wrist, where a strong breeze would've knocked it loose. Waqa was body to body and was merely trying to restrict the offload.

 

[Brissie Kid]

Annesley puts teams on notice amid concerning tackling trend

NRL head of football concerned with tackling trend.

www.nrl.com

Elsewhere, Annesley was comfortable with the NRL Bunker's decision to award Eels centre Waqa Blake a controversial try against Manly.

Blake streaked 90 metres after he took possession from prop Martin Taupau in a two-man tackle.

Annesley believes it was 50-50 as to whether Taupau had lost control or Blake had stripped the ball.

"I'm not prepared to say it was wrong ... I think there is definitely an obligation of the ball-carrier to try and secure the ball," he said.

 

[Ron E. Gibbs]

Even if Marty wasn't trying to offload, he had the ball cuffed between his hand and wrist, where a strong breeze would've knocked it loose. Waqa was body to body and was merely trying to restrict the offload.

If he was merely trying to restrict the offload, why did he pull the ball loose and gallop 90 metres for a try? If a strong breeze knocked it loose and it turned into a knock-on, so be it. But a strong breeze didn't knock it loose - Blake pulled it loose and the rule say he's not allowed to.

 

[madmax]

Loose carry doesn't require separation, if it did it would just be a lost ball. The way I see it is Marty was trying to do his left handed under arm offload thing and Waqa is trying to prevent it (which he is entitled to do) when he ends up with the ball almost by accident. Watched the replay many times and just how I saw it.

I can understand mate but did you read the rule? No matter if Marty was trying to offload, the ball was taken out of his hand by Blake......automatic penalty according to the rules!

 

[Will on the hill]

If he was merely trying to restrict the offload, why did he pull the ball loose and gallop 90 metres for a try? If a strong breeze knocked it loose and it turned into a knock-on, so be it. But a strong breeze didn't knock it loose - Blake pulled it loose and the rule say he's not allowed to.

Didn't pull it loose, he touched it and it came loose.

 

[madmax]

We were only up by 8 and that was definitely close, thank god it didn't get sent to the bunker.

The knees didn’t make contact.....therefore no foul play.

 

[Will on the hill]

The knees didn’t make contact.....therefore no foul play.

Check the replay, he leads with the knees and they make contact (albeit light). Right call? Yes. Was I worried about it being sent to the bunker? Absolutey.

 

[Ron E. Gibbs]

Didn't pull it loose, he touched it and it came loose.

That's still contrary to the rule. Unless it falls into his hands unassisted, he has to leave it alone.
Anyway, let's see if it happens to anyone else and if the refs reach a different conclusion. If the ball is fair game in a three-man tackle, you can bet Craig Bellamy has his players working on it even as we speak.

 

[eaglebuzz]

Annesley puts teams on notice amid concerning tackling trend

NRL head of football concerned with tackling trend.

www.nrl.com

Elsewhere, Annesley was comfortable with the NRL Bunker's decision to award Eels centre Waqa Blake a controversial try against Manly.

Blake streaked 90 metres after he took possession from prop Martin Taupau in a two-man tackle.

Annesley believes it was 50-50 as to whether Taupau had lost control or Blake had stripped the ball.

"I'm not prepared to say it was wrong ... I think there is definitely an obligation of the ball-carrier to try and secure the ball," he said.

Open season on just stripping the ball every time a player tries to offload then. What a joke.

 

[Brissie Kid]

Contrary to Annesley letting it go as it was a "50/50 call", the whole point of the ban on stripping was to encourage late offloads. Even if it was a 50/50 call, then the call should have gone in favour of the attack, not the defence.

 

[MissKate]

Annesley is the most boring person going, he had 10mins of discussion to present and dragged it out to nearly 25mins. The journos didn’t ask too many questions because they had most probably fallen asleep. He needs some serious presentation training or better still retire

 

[MadMarcus]

dce said:

"That's why I think I try to make these games standout games, because I love it when people give it to me," Cherry-Evans said.


- So maybe there should be some bagging of him before each game?!?! Gotta get those wins!

If we make the GF I’m going with a banner saying “DCE IS SH1T!!!”