That short kick off

[Bones]

It wouldn’t have made a difference where our players were standing. GC played the ball before it crossed the 10. Should have been a penalty. Not sure why everyone is talking about feet, where your feet are has nothing to do with it.

I still think the call on the GC knock on was the costly one. We were 10 points up and should have got the ball back. Not only did the ref get it wrong but then he didn’t allow us to challenge the call. If they didn’t score in that next set we probably go on to win, we were getting back on top at that stage.

The bottom line though is every time we got a bad call we allowed it to bite us. We need to be more resilient.

 

[innsaneink]

Yeah it's a dud rule but we suck and deserved to lose..

I'd like to know the thinking about our ridiculous challenge.... Win or lose regardless we never get the ball back the only difference is 20 metres

 

[bathursttiger1]

So when your foot is 1.5cm inside the goal-line the ball is deemed to be taken in goal but when you whole foot is inside the 10m and you contact the ball it's play on..k

That’s why you don’t waste your Captain’s challenge on 50/50 calls.

 

[851]

I would like the stats, but I am very confident we have the worst record at defending a short kick off, as soon as Benji kicked the field goal I knew they would get the ball back from the kick off, happens way too often.

 

[diedpretty]

So when your foot is 1.5cm inside the goal-line the ball is deemed to be taken in goal but when you whole foot is inside the 10m and you contact the ball it's play on..k

Haven't had a second look, but don't think the position of the feet matters, unless they are on the sideline, as it is the position of the ball that counts.

Yeah the ball has to break the 10 metre plane and it clearly didn't do that!!

Exactly - terrible decision. And why was the lines girl standing 2 mtrs back from the 10 mtr line - she should have been right on the 10 mtr line and would have seen that the ball had not travelled 10 mtrs. The rule actually states the ball must travel 10 mtrs forward in the field of play. It obviously didn't.

7. Any other player shall be penalised if he:–
(a) willfully touches the ball from a kick off or dropout before it has travelled ten metres forward in
the field of play.

 

[cochise]

All that matters was that WTs players were happy to let it bounce. They should have got that ball at all cost and not played for a penalty. However, that didn't loose us the game.

If we touch the ball it is a penalty to the Titans

 

[jirskyr]

Reminded me of heighno in that semi versus the chooks.... Our players staring at a football but they're thinking it's a spud while the opposition grab it, score and take the game.

Think it was a legit correct call now though at the time I had my biased doubts... He had one foot in our 40-30m area when he takes it.

**He also had one foot inside the 10, not sure which one over-rules the other.
>**
I don't see what any Tigers player could have done, if they make contact with the footy they constitute a penalty, and the football is coming from the Titans' side, so they can push against the 10m to get the football.

If you get my meaning, BJ Leilua literally could not have backed up at the 40m line and swatted the footy as it crossed the line, he would have had his back to the football and waiting for it to travel past him. Kelly on the other hand had the ball coming towards him and could watch it all the way.

It was unlucky, I don't know how you are supposed to defend that, and if any player could consistently kick off with a bounce that travelled forwards 10m, they'd do it.

Yeah I know.

In the case of a 40/20 kick he's ruled outside the forty even if one foots behind the red line.... But like Don reaching back with his foot on the try line and his other 2m infield its ruled in goal and 20m restart.... 2 similar examples but very diff outcomes

I believe in all cases regarding feet and field, you are deemed to have advanced the ball across the line you make contact with, if you touch the line whilst you have the ball (or touch it with the ball). So balls on the line are a try, feet or balls on in-goal are out (same with sidelines), 40/20s any foot over the 40 is deemed advanced, and technically with A Don, he advanced the ball to the in-goal by having 4 molecules of his big toe on his own try line.

I don't specifically have an issue with the Don tactic because it was a rubbish kick and it deserved to be defused. My issue is why do teams get 7 tackles from defusing a bomb? The whole 7-tackle thing was about preventing intentional kicking dead. Fine, but it shouldn't extend to anything else, i.e. no kick outside say 20m and no bombs. The Don catch makes a mockery of it because the kick was ordinary but it didn't deserved to be penalised 7 tackles just because it went 3 inches too long.

Nor should anyone give up 7 tackles for a knock-on in-goal.

 

[Alex Seyfarth's #1 Fan]

I've always hated this rule which really which advantages a lucky or crap play, like the corner post rule it needs to be tweaked. Its easy done, the receiving team can take the ball whenever they want and the kicking team has to wait till it breaks the 10 metre plane.


Problem solved.

This rule is so dumb. I remember the Jordan Kahu one a few years ago where he thought he scored a try. Seriously, the receiving team should be allowed to pick up the ball even if it hasn't passed 10m. Such a dumb rule.

 

[Juro]

Just watched Graeme Annesley's video which talked about the restart. There was no talk about the player making the ball travel the 10 metres based on where his feet were. It was all based on the ball travelling the required 10 metres. In my mind, it definitely did not before the Titan touched it.

https://www.nrl.com/news/2020/06/09/graham-annesley-weekly-football-briefing---round-4/

Of course, Annesley saw it differently...

 

[jadtiger]

Just watched Graeme Annesley's video which talked about the restart. There was no talk about the player making the ball travel the 10 metres based on where his feet were. It was all based on the ball travelling the required 10 metres. In my mind, it definitely did not before the Titan touched it.

https://www.nrl.com/news/2020/06/09/graham-annesley-weekly-football-briefing---round-4/

Of course, Annesley saw it differently...

Highly unlikely that he would admit refs cost 2 teams wins in the same round,admitting manly got burgled would have been all his weekly quota would allow

 

[rah53]

I've always hated this rule which really which advantages a lucky or crap play, like the corner post rule it needs to be tweaked. Its easy done, the receiving team can take the ball whenever they want and the kicking team has to wait till it breaks the 10 metre plane.


Problem solved.

This rule is so dumb. I remember the Jordan Kahu one a few years ago where he thought he scored a try. Seriously, the receiving team should be allowed to pick up the ball even if it hasn't passed 10m. Such a dumb rule.

I believe that as well. It's the kicking team's obligation to make the ball go 10 metres before they can touch it.

 

[OzLuke]

It comes down to the fact that we had two double digit leads and let them go.....

We were lucky with Don's finger leaving the scantest dna on a try attempt to go as a knock on.....

The titans forwards were rolling and ours were backpedalling....

no desire or fight for the ball....

 

[Hangonaminute]

It's amazing how refs can draw vertical invisible lines and in their minds and determine whether a ball has crossed it from 15m away, yet the video ref can't determine if a pass has left a players hands backwards on a slow motion replay

 

[happy_tiger]

Reminded me of heighno in that semi versus the chooks.... Our players staring at a football but they're thinking it's a spud while the opposition grab it, score and take the game.

Think it was a legit correct call now though at the time I had my biased doubts... He had one foot in our 40-30m area when he takes it.

Hey Ink ...it's a funny one

Is what the Titans player did any different from a what defenders do when blocking runners trying to get a bomb or players blocking defenders trying to get to the player taking a field goal shot

If that was a bomb and he stopped in front of the line , turned his back and prevented the fullback / winger making a challenge for the ball he gets penalized

Like technically your offside ..but your not ...two rules clash ..surely you can only touch the ball from a onside position

It's a weird one .....

 

[tigerbalm]

even if wests recovered the kick and won by 1, its still a loss. Giving up 2 big leads is the issue that needs addressing.

Hate to say it but it might be the loss that they needed to have (vomit). If they won by one we might not have seen the shakeup we've seen this week. Its put a lot of players on notice and given some a chance to show their worth. They'll go into a Canberra game embarrassed compared to normally coming out of a Canberra game embarrassed.

In saying that, Raiders by 40.

 

[jadtiger]

even if wests recovered the kick and won by 1, its still a loss. Giving up 2 big leads is the issue that needs addressing.

Hate to say it but it might be the loss that they needed to have (vomit). If they won by one we might not have seen the shakeup we've seen this week. Its put a lot of players on notice and given some a chance to show their worth. They'll go into a Canberra game embarrassed compared to normally coming out of a Canberra game embarrassed.

In saying that, Raiders by 40.

I would hope that the shake up was going to happen regardless of the loss,a win by 1 point would have been just as pathetic a performance

 

[Tim Sheens]

It comes down to the fact that we had two double digit leads and let them go.....

We were lucky with Don's finger leaving the scantest dna on a try attempt to go as a knock on.....

The titans forwards were rolling and ours were backpedalling....

no desire or fight for the ball....

Yeah, some line ball decisions would have helped, but we got rolled through the guts a lot of the game and their kickers often had as much time as they did in the warm-up.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

I've always hated this rule which really which advantages a lucky or crap play, like the corner post rule it needs to be tweaked. Its easy done, the receiving team can take the ball whenever they want and the kicking team has to wait till it breaks the 10 metre plane.


Problem solved.

This rule is so dumb. I remember the Jordan Kahu one a few years ago where he thought he scored a try. Seriously, the receiving team should be allowed to pick up the ball even if it hasn't passed 10m. Such a dumb rule.

The rule should also include that ball should also must land 10m on the fly if the kicking team is to regather (in other words, it must bounce for them to contest in order to rule whether it traveled the 10m.)

 

[tig_prmz]

the player's position doesn't matter in that rule.

The ball has to cross the vertical plane of the 40m line which I don't think happened

 

[Geo]

I've always hated this rule which really which advantages a lucky or crap play, like the corner post rule it needs to be tweaked. Its easy done, the receiving team can take the ball whenever they want and the kicking team has to wait till it breaks the 10 metre plane.


Problem solved.

This rule is so dumb. I remember the Jordan Kahu one a few years ago where he thought he scored a try. Seriously, the receiving team should be allowed to pick up the ball even if it hasn't passed 10m. Such a dumb rule.
...
The rule should also include that ball should also must land 10m on the fly if the kicking team is to regather (in other words, it must bounce for them to contest in order to rule whether it traveled the 10m.)

What if your short kick off is a grubber...