Rock Hopper Steve
Well-known member
Good chance it could happen in the last 20 mins you would expect a young side to feel the pinch then.
Penrith resting players
- Thread starter mtd#2
- Start date
crazycat
Well-known member
I really hope Ivan gives those players a nice Fuzzy onezie and some Ugg boots...
With the Hot coco warmed just right, not too warm and A marshmellow if they have been good.
Tuck them in and tell them a fantasy bedtime story "once their was a sport called NRL, and it had a make-believe salary cap!"
With the Hot coco warmed just right, not too warm and A marshmellow if they have been good.
Tuck them in and tell them a fantasy bedtime story "once their was a sport called NRL, and it had a make-believe salary cap!"
Poor old Asu Kepaoa. 16 players out and he still could crack the top 17.
Im not sure how you could possibly write most the rules of rugby league to be black and white?
The term interpretation became a part of rugby league vernacular as refs outline how they will interpret various similar but different plays that commonly occurs in a game. It is supposed to make things more black and white by having standards set. Those standards are constantly updating (unfortunately often in season) but the clubs are kept informed of these updates as well as any fan that can be bothered looking.
how can you keep it black n white if black n white keeps shifting ,
The interpretation rules just turned it grey , and opened it up to manipulation n frued
So even the black and white rules of no stripping when multiple players in a tackle or forward passes. They are still not black and white rulings, eg. Was the player stripping or wrapping up the ball to prevent an offload. Was it back out of the hands. There will be multiple opinions on most occasions.
Most the interpretation comes down to the tackle and how long you can hold down for. You could make it a set time to be black and white eg there must be no defenders in contact with the defender 4 seconds after the tackle is complete. But this black and white would take away from the nuance of the game. Is it a dominant tackle, is it a surrender tackle, has the attacker won the collision and earnt a quick PTB. Is this what we want?
Aside from an example like this I still don't really understand what is complicated about interpretations or what a 'black and white' game is supposed to look like.
As I said interpretations are supposed to provide guidelines to make the unclear rules be more black and white. I don't see how outlining interpretations does anything but clarify things.
Yes as you say they keep shifting (often for the worse in my opinion), but we'd still be playing unlimited tackles and 5 yard lines if things weren't constantly changing.
There will be arguable or just plain incorrect calls regardless of how simplistic the rule book is. When one team cops a couple of the their fanbase will be crying foul of the refs and accuse them of manipulating results. Overhauling the rule book won't change this at all.
This is going to be an interesting discussion... I will come into this with an open mind..
Let's start with a simple one...
There was an incident last night where Penrith were penalised for not playing the ball with their foot... A roll ball as they like to call it...
Can you please explain to me how the other 50 times that this happened in the same game it's not enforced by the referee?
It raises questions as to why the referee chooses to penalise a NSW cup Penrith side when they are about to attack the NRL bulldogs side try line early in the game --- but then never again the rest of the game... Can you help me understand this?
What is going through the referees head to blow that first penalty? Then what goes through their head when they see the same offence throughout the rest of the game and they keep the whistle in their pocket?
Last edited:
There are two separate discussion points here. The first is that the rule book needs updating because we have interpretations rather than black and white rules. The second is consistency around adjudicating.
In response to the first point using the roll ball rule as the example. The rule book says the player must use his foot to roll the ball backwards. The current interpretation is that any motion with the foot will do, whether there is any actual contact with the ball or not. Whilst it remains a penalty if there is no motion with the foot and simply rolled through. This interpretation of the rule is black and white even though it does not line up with the actual rule as written.
Now to the consistency around adjudicating. There are a few issues here.
In my opinion we rarely see inconsistencies around 'how' the rule is interpreted. We never see a roll ball penalty when there is an attempt with the foot but no contact. It is only ever when there is no attempt at all. So we do see consistency in interpretation and black and white rules.
But we have not, do not and never will see consistency in adjudicating, even if interpretation is consistent. So why do we not?
First and foremost, it will never happen. Human error is just to common to start with yet alone when asking one bloke to monitor the ruck, the play the ball, markers and on-sides. Human error, combined with excessive work load (can't look everywhere at once) is the overarching reason for incorrect calls.
Having said that there are deeper issues that lead to this human error. And I believe would be worth deeper thought if you want to continue the discussion. I wont go on here as I don't want to waste my time if you aren't genuinely interested. (I realise this could be misinterpreted as a shot at you, please don't take it that way. It is not intended as such).
I will respond to the specific question you have proposed however if why did the referee choose this moment to blow his whistle rather than the "50" other times.
First let's go back to the current interpretation of a roll ball. I think the reality is that under the current interpretation there would rarely be more than 5 a game that could be deemed penalty worthy. Compared to the rule as written it probably would be 50.
But still why aren't the other 4 or so occasions penalised. Why this time?
Well this comes back to the 'feel for game' that refs are often applauded or criticised for.
It is generally accepted that in any given game, according to the letter of the law (and it's interpretations) you could potentially blow dozens of penalties a game. However could you imagine the uproar if we were seeing penalties in these numbers? Noone would watch the game. So refs need to choose when to blow the whistle and when to overlook an infringement.
So again, why this time blow the whistle and not other times. Essentially minor indiscretions (that aren't related to player safety) will be overlooked if there is no advantage to the infringing team. A roll ball when it is a slow play the ball will be overlooked. Similarly a not square marker when the play goes the other way or a marginally offside player when they aren't first into contact. These infringements have not gained their side anything, so in order to let the game flow and avoid excess penalties they are let go.
A roll ball that results in an unearned and unnaturally fast play the ball when a side is on the attack, or relieving pressure out of ones end however will gain a side advantage and thus is far more likely to be penalized.
Now I perfectly understand that many will say an infringement is an infringement game situation should not matter. But, be honest, what will you then say about the ref and his 'nit-picking' penalties if this were to happen.
Last edited:
