|
FORUMS > The Virtual Terrace > You can tackle the player in the air!!! |
![](images/sitelogos/2022-2.jpg) |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Club Coach | 7152 | ![](images/sitelogos/fullsize/28.png) |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jan 2005 | 20 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Dec 2020 | Jun 2020 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
12389.gif :12389.gif |
|
| Quote: Steve Fox "That's nonsense if you don't mind me saying so.
Imagine an attacker cantering towards the sticks for a try. Out of his eyeline a defender has sprinted back but instead of tackling the man he chooses to stiff arm his opponent who falls unconscious to the ground a yard from the goal line, losing the ball in the process.
Should the referee merely award a penalty attack on the basis that a legal tackle could have prevented a try?
The judgement is made on what a player does, not on what he might have done.
As for "certainty" or "the act of scoring" there's no such wording in the rules. In theory a referee could award a penalty try based on an illegal act on halfway if, in his opinion, a score would otherwise have resulted.
[i"the Referee may award a penalty try if, in his opinion, a try would have been scored but for the
unfair play of the defending team."[/i'"
Precisely.
Lance Hohaia's try in the World Cup Final is the perfect example. He didn't even have possession, the ball was bouncing, there were other defenders chasing the ball and he was a good few yards away and not even over the tryline when he was felled. There was no 'certainty' about it - yet the ref determined that in his opinion, a try would have been scored but for the unfair play of the defending team.
Any number of things [icould [/ihave happened. Hohaia could have slipped, the ball could have taken a wicked bounce, a defender could have reached him just after he gathered the ball and got his body underneath to prevent the grounding. What the defender could or could not have done is not the question posed by the Laws: the only question is, would the try have been scored without the unfair play?
And I find it extraordinary any RL coaches think players can be tackled in the air. I've known about it for years.
| | |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 22777 | ![](images/sitelogos/forumcells/154.gif) |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2006 | 18 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
//www.pngnrlbid.com
[quote="bUsTiNyAbALLs":9q9d2t35]Do not converse with me you filthy minded deviant.[/quote:9q9d2t35]
[quote="vastman":9q9d2t35]My rage isn't impotent luv, I'm frothing at the mouth actually.[/quote:9q9d2t35]: |
|
| Quote: Kelvin's Ferret "This is what I think is considered when deciding to award a penality try or not, if the offence hadn't been committed would something else possibly have happened to stop the try? I'm also far from convinced that the laws as stated require the officials to remove the offending player from those alternative scenarios where an offence has not been committed, so if Fox had not offended could he have done something legal to stop the try being scored instead?'"
he could have done, but by no mean necessarily would have done.
Fox would have been taken out of the equation by committing an illegal act, he doesnt then get the benefit of judging whether or not he could possibly have done something different.
If it was another player however i.e had Fox not tackled the player but another player elsewhere was in a position to do so, they would be taken into account
| | |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Board Member | 1210 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Aug 2002 | 22 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jan 2015 | Feb 2013 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
This is why events unnerve me.: |
|
| Quote: SmokeyTA "Fox would have been taken out of the equation by committing an illegal act, he doesnt then get the benefit of judging whether or not he could possibly have done something different.
If it was another player however i.e had Fox not tackled the player but another player elsewhere was in a position to do so, they would be taken into account'"
I agree.
But the whole thing seems a bit perverse.
A defender makes a valiant (and legal) effort to stop a try but the attacker is given the benefit of the doubt on video review.
The defender prevents a score with a piece of foul play and the refs seem to be under instructions not to award the four points unless they are absolutely certain a try would have resulted.
Legal defensive play = benefit of the doubt to the attack.
Illegal defensive play = benefit of the doubt to the defence.
| | |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Board Member | 28357 | ![](images/sitelogos/fullsize/19.png) |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Feb 2002 | 22 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
May 2024 | Oct 2019 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
973_1515165968.gif Last 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 |
|
| Quote: trys'r'us "I think FA was working from the position that the attacker had already caught the ball and was somehow out of reach of defenders at take-off, but would be within their reach at the point of landing. Obviously it's an edge case, but I'd like to know what FA would want the law to be in that case.'"
No, I said
Quote: trys'r'us "...He can't be tackled whilst diving (he hasn't got the ball); he can't be tackled on catching it (he's off the ground). A defender could only try to place himself in such a way as to prevent a touchdown. There is no way he could legally touch the diving player whilst still in the air. And in my opinion that is a ridiculous result.'"
It doesn't matter if he is in reach of defenders "at take-off". Shoulder-to-shoulder ball contests apart, you can't do anything to tackle a player before he has got the ball.
I can imagine how in certain circumstances (if much less frequently) the risk to an attacker being tackled in mid air may be as bad as for a defender catching a kick, although generally it isn't directly comparable. But I don't see how you can prohibit a defender from attempting a tackle to prevent a try, and I think the interpretation of the rule that we saw is nonsensical. The attacker was placed in no danger by the tackle, nor was he likely to be, and ATEOTD you can't expect the defender to just leave the player to catch and score, he has to be allowed to prevent the try if he can. Leaving him just the option of getting between ball and ground is absurd.
And another thing - there is no real point in having the rule this way, as every defender will always make that tackle every time. No defender is going to just let the guy sail through to score unmolested, and rightly so.
You could either simply interpret it the Aussie way - ie you can tackle attacker in the air full stop; or maybe if he is tackled, but put in a dangerous position as a result, use that rule to award the penalty. There is very much less chance of an attacker being put in a dangerous position, than a defender by onrushing attackers, and so that would in my book be a reasonable compromise.
| | | |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Club Coach | 5397 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Mar 2004 | 20 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Apr 2011 | Jul 2010 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
8903.gif [quote="dave m":36nw6ut6]Briscoe couldn't get into Wigans Team because of Radlinski even though Radlinski was playing crap at the time still better than old bent nose.[/quote:36nw6ut6]
[quote="redtillimdead":36nw6ut6]Oh and as for Briscoe,if he was that fab,why did Wigan see fit to let him leave?[/quote:36nw6ut6]:8903.gif |
|
| Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "It doesn't matter if he is in reach of defenders "at take-off". Shoulder-to-shoulder ball contests apart, you can't do anything to tackle a player before he has got the ball. '"
Right, so there's one thing that the defender can do. Along with jumping for the ball (if he's in reach of the attacker, he will probably have a chance of getting to, or at least challenging for, the ball). Both legal methods of doing something rather than the illegal approach that was taken.
I don't see why there has to be a rule in place to allow the defender to do something in this situation. If it's a good enough kick/catch/jump, the attacking side has earned the right to score. If the defending player is in such a poor position that he can't make a legal play to prevent the score, that's his problem. Just as it would be his problem if the attacker stepped him, leaving him off balance and with no other way of stopping the ball-carrier other than by making a high-tackle.
| | |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Club Coach | 7343 | ![](images/sitelogos/fullsize/27.png) |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Oct 2004 | 20 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
May 2024 | May 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
10025.jpg For contributions, remittances, payments, and all other matters of any responsibility, please refer to someone else.
“The British people love a good hero and a good hate”
Lord Northcliffe:10025.jpg |
|
| Quote: SmokeyTA "he could have done, but by no mean necessarily would have done.'"
I agree, but it's the possibilities that are considered.
Quote: SmokeyTA "
Fox would have been taken out of the equation by committing an illegal act, he doesnt then get the benefit of judging whether or not he could possibly have done something different.'"
The problem I have with this is that nobody has demonstrated where in the laws it actually says the offending player must be removed from consideration in alternative scenarios had the illegal act itself not taken place. Everyone seems to agree that the consideration is about the probability of a try being scored had the illegal act not happened. So I'm possibly being pedantic here, but I draw a distinction between the player and the act itself, and the laws don't appear to rule against my distinction.
I've seen penalty tries given where the offender was unlikely to stop a try in any other way than committing a foul, but I'm not convinced this case fits that category, because I think if Fox hadn't have fouled, if he'd have executed one or two seconds later he may still have done something to stop the try which would not have been illegal.
Quote: SmokeyTA "
If it was another player however i.e had Fox not tackled the player but another player elsewhere was in a position to do so, they would be taken into account'"
But where does it say that Fox is ruled out of possible scenarios had he not committed the foul?
| | |
![](images/sitelogos/2022-2.jpg) | |
![](images/sitelogos/2022-2.jpg) |
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.
Copyright 1999 - 2024 RLFANS.COM
You must be 18+ to gamble, for more information and for help with gambling issues see https://www.begambleaware.org/.
Please Support RLFANS.COM
3.52978515625:5
|
|
POSTS | ONLINE | REGISTRATIONS | RECORD | 19.61M | 2,820 ↑17 | 80,093 | 14,103 |
| LOGIN HERE or REGISTER for more features!.
When you register you get access to the live match scores, live match chat and you can post in the discussions on the forums.
|
RLFANS Match Centre ![](images/on.png)
Mens Betfred Super League XXVIII ROUND : 1 | | PLD | F | A | DIFF | PTS |
Hull KR |
20 |
503 |
259 |
244 |
30 |
This is an inplay table and live positions can change.
Wigan |
19 |
495 |
258 |
237 |
30 |
Warrington |
20 |
502 |
267 |
235 |
28 |
Salford |
20 |
377 |
382 |
-5 |
26 |
St.Helens |
20 |
501 |
262 |
239 |
24 |
Catalans |
20 |
376 |
286 |
90 |
24 |
|
Leeds |
20 |
371 |
364 |
7 |
20 |
Leigh |
19 |
392 |
286 |
106 |
19 |
Huddersfield |
20 |
350 |
453 |
-103 |
14 |
Castleford |
20 |
336 |
523 |
-187 |
13 |
Hull FC |
20 |
274 |
612 |
-338 |
6 |
LondonB |
20 |
210 |
735 |
-525 |
4 |
Betfred Championship 2024 ROUND : 1 | | PLD | F | A | DIFF | PTS |
Wakefield |
18 |
626 |
222 |
404 |
34 |
This is an inplay table and live positions can change.
Sheffield |
18 |
510 |
303 |
207 |
26 |
Toulouse |
17 |
516 |
224 |
292 |
25 |
Widnes |
18 |
434 |
319 |
115 |
23 |
Bradford |
18 |
421 |
321 |
100 |
22 |
Featherstone |
18 |
464 |
375 |
89 |
18 |
|
Doncaster |
18 |
338 |
432 |
-94 |
17 |
York |
19 |
446 |
383 |
63 |
16 |
Batley |
18 |
300 |
390 |
-90 |
16 |
Halifax |
18 |
356 |
477 |
-121 |
14 |
Barrow |
17 |
279 |
482 |
-203 |
13 |
Swinton |
18 |
346 |
470 |
-124 |
12 |
Whitehaven |
18 |
348 |
580 |
-232 |
12 |
Dewsbury |
19 |
240 |
602 |
-362 |
2 |
|