Rule interpretations

[Chris Harding]

I know it had no bearing on either game but, once again we have witnessed two referees with entirely different interpretations of the same rule:

A Dragons forward is stopped short of the line, held short of the line, then reaches over and grounds it well after his forward progress had been stopped. Ruling - TRY.

Hickey is tackled short of the line, reaches over and slams the ball down. Ruling - NO TRY - Penalty against Hickey.

In neither case did the ball touch the ground in the field of play. One was allowed; one was penalised.

Looks like the finals could be a lottery.

 

[Darbas]

Just saw that Dragons try and very disappointed that ours was disallowed and the dragons try awarded.

 

[lebo_dogz]

yh hard, i got so angry at dat

 

[PineappleBoy]

I havnt seen Dragons. But the rule is if the forearm carrying the ball touches the ground its ruled double movement.

So on that I would have to assume that the dragons should have been no try (I havnt seen it)?

It was the correct decision for hicky though. The arm carrying the ball had touched the ground thus it was ruled double movement.

 

[Rodzilla]

the dragons arm didnt touch the ground but he took a long time to reach out

he could have been held imo

i have no problem with the hickey no try if his arm hit the ground

 

[Chris Harding]

I havnt seen Dragons. But the rule is if the forearm carrying the ball touches the ground its ruled double movement.

So on that I would have to assume that the dragons should have been no try (I havnt seen it)?

It was the correct decision for hicky though. The arm carrying the ball had touched the ground thus it was ruled double movement.

OK. I didn't realise that Hickey's arm touched the ground. The Dragons player definitely did not touch the ground with his arm, but his progress was well and truly halted.

 

[PineappleBoy]

Im not sure how they currently rule if the movement was halted but since his arm didnt touch the ground thats prob why it was awarded.

Sort of like Hazems in 2004. Roosters players claimed that haz was halted before he broke the tackle and scored. And he was stopped but because his arm didnt touch the ground being on their chests when he scored it was counted.

 

[PineappleBoy]

Ok just watched the highlights the Dan Hunt (if that is the one) doesnt compare to hickeys. The arm doesnt touch the ground and he just reaches out fairly quickly too.

Hickeys arm touched the ground which is why it was ruled double movement.

 

[roc-a-fella]

I <3 pineapple boy. Never too biased to tell it like it is

 

[bckd]

going with the mood of the refs before this try, I would have expected it to have been called tackle. Momentum had stopped, 2 dogs had their hands on him. If 1 of the dogs had flopped on him, which would have stopped him promoting the ball, I believe they would have penalised us. It should have been a penalty to us. Tackle was made. Momentum had stopped.

 

[Rodzilla]

I <3 pineapple boy. Never too biased to tell it like it is

pinneapple boy just loves the dragons

if it was souths he would say no try

 

[PantherPower83]

The refs got alot of decisions right in the Dragons game. In a season where refs have come under fire...I actually thought they had a great game.

 

[Rodzilla]

The refs got alot of decisions right in the Dragons game. In a season where refs have come under fire...I actually thought they had a great game.

i thought the morris try was a bit generous though

 

[bckd]

What about the racking of the ball on our first play the ball. Why no penalty. Led to there 1st try and 9 minutes of straight possession for tigers.
What about Marshall pushing Haz in the back, stopping him from attempting to tackle. Second try.
What about the knock on given, Idris makes break, called back for scrum. Tigers 3rd try.
What about penalty for holding down to long. Led to try, can't remember which 1 maybe 4th. Tigers had gotten away with holding us and slowing us down all game.
Where is the consistancy.
Yes we played with no hunger but these calls make the game a lot closer and maybe, just maybe, could have made the game close enough for us to find the hunger by the end.

 

[PantherPower83]

i thought the morris try was a bit generous though

I could see how Archer could rule that a try - but yeah very very generous.

 

[PineappleBoy]

pinneapple boy just loves the dragons

if it was souths he would say no try

No if it was souths I'd say exactly the same thing but hope they ruled no try anyway

 

[PineappleBoy]

Thats from the Australian Rugby League 2008 Laws book. I think it covers both those plays.

There doesnt seem to be any definite law on how long untill play is deemed stop but definately the arm off the ground makes the difference in awarding the try.