Fresh twist in Tigers saga: Holmes should’ve been penalised for illegal kick-off

Kent said on 360 tonight that he spoke to the NRL about Holmes being offside when he kicked off, the NRL response was “it would look funny penalising him for being in front of being in front of himself”.
Talk about a bunch of brainless idiots that are supposed to be running this game.
 
bathursttiger1 said:
Kent said on 360 tonight that he spoke to the NRL about Holmes being offside when he kicked off, the NRL response was “it would look funny penalising him for being in front of being in front of himself”.
Talk about a bunch of brainless idiots that are supposed to be running this game.
Click to expand...

A typical cover their arse comment by the spokesman for the NRL.They are about as genuine as a 3 dollar note
 
diedpretty said:
no - this is what the rule says " “A player who kicks off or drops-out shall be penalised if he advances in front of the appropriate line before kicking the ball”.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected.

So Rex was right about Giteau and Val should've been penalised on review.
 
diedpretty said:
no - this is what the rule says " “A player who kicks off or drops-out shall be penalised if he advances in front of the appropriate line before kicking the ball”.
Click to expand...
I always find with these interpretations, you try and find a farcical example and see how that would be interpreted, then bring it back to a very mild/borderline example and see if that interpretation still stands.

So imagine Holmes walks over to the Tigers 40 metre line, then jogs back 10 metres before putting in his kick. Obviously that's farcical and you would expect it's a penalty.

Or, and what I believe the rule is mostly for, preventing the player from advancing the ball beyond the mark before kicking, particularly from a drop-out.

So if being 10 metres offside before a kick is unacceptable, surely then being 1-2 metres offside is equally unacceptable.

I'm happy for everyone to say "yes it's in the rule book but we don't really police it", but I do not accept if they say "well it doesn't make any sense to penalise the kicker for being in front of himself", when all that does is prove that they aren't reading their own rules.

And if they are going to permit rugby-style round-the-corner kickoffs (which are the most effective for sending the ball on an arcing 10-metre high trajectory, especially on your off-hand side), then amend the rule or introduce an interpretation and make everyone aware of it.
 
Cobarcats said:
Maybe so but when watching it, they went straight to that one overhead view and it seemed premeditated for them to say escort. Reeks of incompetence or biased opinion against WT.
Click to expand...
As you said Klein should have gone right back to the start of the last play and the second he saw Val Holmes had illegally kicked the ball off dismissed the challenge there and than. The only thing that could have overruled that I guess was some really bad foul play
 
jirskyr said:
I always find with these interpretations, you try and find a farcical example and see how that would be interpreted, then bring it back to a very mild/borderline example and see if that interpretation still stands.

So imagine Holmes walks over to the Tigers 40 metre line, then jogs back 10 metres before putting in his kick. Obviously that's farcical and you would expect it's a penalty.

Or, and what I believe the rule is mostly for, preventing the player from advancing the ball beyond the mark before kicking, particularly from a drop-out.

So if being 10 metres offside before a kick is unacceptable, surely then being 1-2 metres offside is equally unacceptable.

I'm happy for everyone to say "yes it's in the rule book but we don't really police it", but I do not accept if they say "well it doesn't make any sense to penalise the kicker for being in front of himself", when all that does is prove that they aren't reading their own rules.

And if they are going to permit rugby-style round-the-corner kickoffs (which are the most effective for sending the ball on an arcing 10-metre high trajectory, especially on your off-hand side), then amend the rule or introduce an interpretation and make everyone aware of it.
Click to expand...
I agree - if they are not going to penalise a blatant breaking of a rule then they either have to remove the rule or amend it to suit todays style of play. Another couple of examples are " voluntary tackle". We see voluntary tackles at least once in every game - even in the farcical ending Daine Laurie was guilty of a voluntary tackle. Also the rule of when a player is effectively tackled. The interpretation of a tackle no longer follows the rule. The NRL has been too busy creating new rules for television and the entertainment value of the game to the point that they have lost the plot to actually officiating to the rules that were already in place. No one wants to see the game deteriorate to rugby standards where every indiscretion is penalised but to avoid the farce of the weekend they need to completely overhaul and simplify the rules.
 
batboy said:
You really are stuck in the 70’s aren’t you?
Click to expand...
The trouble is so are the rules. What Bus 2Terrigal said is actually still in the rules for scrums ( along with the makeup of the scrum which doesn't include wingers packing in to the second row!!!) . The NRL is too damn busy creating new rules to find the time to overhaul the existing rules and bring them up to date. Virtually every rule these days is to open to the whim of the referee and what interpretation he wants to use on the day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BZN
Still can't believe we got penalized for taking too long to pack a scrum when we had the advantage of the scrum feed against the 'Riff in round 18.

I'm not even 100% sure if it was right because when I saw it I think that the ball had been fed and was back out of the scrum when the penalty was blown and for some reason the camera was fixated on Charlie Staines during a crucial part when I tried to review it.

We probably have no one to blame but ourselves for that one but you still can't help but wonder what rule, whether in the book or made up on the spot, are the NRL going to dig up next to disadvantage Wests Tigers.
 
hank37w said:
Still can't believe we got penalized for taking too long to pack a scrum when we had the advantage of the scrum feed against the 'Riff in round 18.

I'm not even 100% sure if it was right because when I saw it I think that the ball had been fed and was back out of the scrum when the penalty was blown and for some reason the camera was fixated on Charlie Staines during a crucial part when I tried to review it.

We probably have no one to blame but ourselves for that one but you still can't help but wonder what rule, whether in the book or made up on the spot, are the NRL going to dig up next to disadvantage Wests Tigers.
Click to expand...
I’ll never forgive them for that. When they say it’s refs discretion it’s the same with the cops, if they pull you over , they don’t have to fine you, they can give you a warning on the run. What that clown done to us and please mention his name is I’ve forgotten who it was, so I can scrutinise every scrum from now on that he officiates on field , look how the idiot has attracted unwanted attention.
 
Fraze23 said:
If you watch the tracker they used on 360 you can see Feldt sprint and then slow down so Kepoa can get into his line.

Feldt had no intention of contesting the ball. I firmly believe he was playing for a penalty.

Even without the collision with Kepoa there was no way he was getting to that ball on the full.
Click to expand...
I'm convinced this was a set move..... Watch again and watch Townsend... He knew what was happening he's looking at Feldt before the collision and then arms.up pleading to the ref instantaneously.... Most players would be watching the ball
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

... and 3 more.
Total: 692 (members: 53, guests: 639)
Back
Top