"A player in possession shall not deliberately and unnecessarily allow himself to be tackled by voluntarily falling to the ground when not held by an opponent."
Whilst agreeing with FA to come extent surely there are 3 not 2 elements to the rule. Deliberately and unnecessarily are two but the third element is 'allow himself to be tackled'. Therefore a player (who for the sake of argument we will call Joynt) that runs up to two players and throws himself to the ground has only fulfilled two of the conditions in that he has deliberately and unnecessarily gone to ground nut has not allowed himself to be tackled until a tackle is completed. If the wording of the rule was changed to "A player in possession shall not deliberately and unnecessarily with the intention of allowing himself to be tackled by voluntarily falling to the ground when not held by an opponent" then he would have committed said offence. Numerous examples of voluntary tackles were committed by Saints at this time whereby the players would run into tacklers and throw themselves to the ground with the intention of dropping and then jumping up for a quick play the ball. This led to the referees shouting out that the player had submitted to the tackle and the defenders had longer to lay on when the ref should have just penalised him.
Thought this thread was all about injustice? And also the fact that in a later injustice served up by Steve Ganson, when he eventually agreed that we (and the millions of viewers who saw the injustice on Sky were right and he was wrong, which like the voluntary tackle by Chris Joint cost us victory against Saints and Leeds. At least Smith bugg...d off to Australia whilst Ganson was promoted to the highest office (probably on the 3rd floor, if Red Hall is multi story) at the RFL.
Yes it was right on both counts!!
973_1515165968.gifLast edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total:d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_973.gif
All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or its subsites.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.
RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.