Can someone explain to me

[jirskyr]

How Moses got penalised for diving on the footy?

Klein was saying something about not being allowed to dive on the footy when they have a dummy half, but Robson must have been 5+ metres away from the play, and the ball was just sitting there.

Moses was arguing that he was square, and I think he was, but that isn't why he was penalised.

In future we can just refuse to pick up the footy from a PTB? Waste the clock down?

It was crucial to the Warriors, gave them another leg-up in their comeback.

I remain baffled.

 

[king_sirro]

How Moses got penalised for diving on the footy?

Klein was saying something about not being allowed to dive on the footy when they have a dummy half, but Robson must have been 5+ metres away from the play, and the ball was just sitting there.

Moses was arguing that he was square, and I think he was, but that isn't why he was penalised.

In future we can just refuse to pick up the footy from a PTB? Waste the clock down?

It was crucial to the Warriors, gave them another leg-up in their comeback.

I remain baffled.

Lol like mini footy, cant move until the ball has cleared the ruck, so technically the dummy half could just stand over the ball for 10 minutes and the opposition isnt allowed to move. Dont think that would fly in the NRL

 

[Yossarian]

They always ping that even though there is no ruck. The whole play the ball is a joke. First you couldn't strike for the ball now you don't seem to need to play the ball facing straight ahead or with the foot,

 

[innsaneink]

Klein hates us
Bastard

 

[stryker]

I thought that decision was wrong. It was a quick PTB and their dummy half was tardy. Was a good play by Moses.

 

[Geo]

I thought Klein said You can't do it when they don't have a Dummy half…I to was baffled...seemed a fair play to me...

There is no contest for the football apart from bombs...Oh for the days you could rake for the football..

 

[MacDougall]

I think (correct me if you know better) that you can't _dive_ into the ruck. If he had have scooped through and picked it up and stayed on his feet it would have been legal.

 

[Masterton]

I think it was play on. It is just the normal reaction of refs to blow the whistle whenever they see something unexpected.

 

[southerntiger]

I think (correct me if you know better) that you can't _dive_ into the ruck. If he had have scooped through and picked it up and stayed on his feet it would have been legal.

Yeh its in the notes to section 11 of the International Laws of the Game, which deals with the tackle and play the ball. It states as follows:

_4\. If the player marking the tackled player at the play-the-ball dives behind the tackled player in order to drop on the ball as it is heeled, he is guilty of a voluntary tackle and should be penalised. If there is no acting halfback it is permissible for a player to dive behind the tackled player and drop on the ball after it has been heeled provided that, unless tackled, he immediately regains his feet._

Section 11 otherwise states:

_When the ball touches the ground it must be heeled (i.e. backwards) by the tackled player. The ball must not be kicked or heeled by the player marking him. The ball is in play when it has been played backward._

So there was nothing to prevent Moses from running through and picking up the ball.

We may have then been penalised for interfering in the ruck as I recall Robson protesting he couldn't get through because a player was lying in front of him. However, IMO it was mainly because he was looking at his line to see what he was going to do.

 

[MacDougall]

So technically the penalty is for a voluntary tackle? Haha okay so it shouldn't have been a penalty after all. Good stuff. If that were the case anybody diving on a grubber is also guilty of a voluntary tackle.

 

[innsaneink]

So technically the penalty is for a voluntary tackle? Haha okay so it shouldn't have been a penalty after all. Good stuff. If that were the case anybody diving on a grubber is also guilty of a voluntary tackle.

.
It's not the ruck area… It's a different scenario... They can be penalised for VT but how often does it happen when it should?

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

Anyway, no one on here is going to crucify Moses for diving on the ball and we hope he can do it more often but get away with it. He has a bit of mouth in him - he can be a future captain.

 

[Yossarian]

There was no ruck. The rule quoted by southerntiger says you _can_ dive on the ball if there is no dummy half but you need to regain your feet to avoid being pinged for a voluntary tackle. Okay sure but this applies to diving on the ball or to the ground in any situation so either you penalise all voluntary tackles or none.

 

[Yossarian]

So technically the penalty is for a voluntary tackle? Haha okay so it shouldn't have been a penalty after all. Good stuff. If that were the case anybody diving on a grubber is also guilty of a voluntary tackle.

You can dive on the ball but you need to stand up straight after.

 

[MacDougall]

Yeah but that it falls into the realm of the voluntary tackle makes the entire concept ridiculous by virtue of them not penalising voluntary tackles in any other scenario.

 

[saundo1982]

So technically the penalty is for a voluntary tackle? Haha okay so it shouldn't have been a penalty after all. Good stuff. If that were the case anybody diving on a grubber is also guilty of a voluntary tackle.

You can dive on the ball but you need to stand up straight after.

Ref blew the whistle pretty quickly and didnt give a chance to get back to his feet.

 

[Yossarian]

So technically the penalty is for a voluntary tackle? Haha okay so it shouldn't have been a penalty after all. Good stuff. If that were the case anybody diving on a grubber is also guilty of a voluntary tackle.

You can dive on the ball but you need to stand up straight after.

Ref blew the whistle pretty quickly and didnt give a chance to get back to his feet.

I'm not defending the penalty I was replying to saundo's comment about diving on grubbers.

 

[Yossarian]

Yeah but that it falls into the realm of the voluntary tackle makes the entire concept ridiculous by virtue of them not penalising voluntary tackles in any other scenario.

Agreed. I made the same point earlier in this thread.

 

[Sabre]

I get that it's the correct decision but what a stupid rule it is…
How can it be considered a voluntary tackle when you're trying to gain possession...

 

[saundo1982]

So technically the penalty is for a voluntary tackle? Haha okay so it shouldn't have been a penalty after all. Good stuff. If that were the case anybody diving on a grubber is also guilty of a voluntary tackle.

You can dive on the ball but you need to stand up straight after.

Ref blew the whistle pretty quickly and didnt give a chance to get back to his feet.

I'm not defending the penalty I was replying to saundo's comment about diving on grubbers.

not having a dig but never said anything about diving on grubbers, that wasnt me. and i wasnt haviong a shot at your comment just pointing out that he never got a chance to even try to stand up as no sooner had he landed on the ball was the whistle blown.

The way the ref spoke at the time made it sound if there is no dummy half you cant get the ball.