| |
Welcome to the NEW RLFANS.COM. After twenty-five years of service, the old site expired over the last few days. To maintain service we have had no option but to make an early switch to the new site which was in development/testing. Some elements of the new site are unfinished, such as; page numbering and quotations. We will fix these minor issues as soon as we can, please bear with us.
If you are having problems logging in, please try a different browser or platform, if problems persist then email support@rlfans.com
 |
| 
 |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Owner | 5397 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2004 | 21 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Apr 2011 | Jul 2010 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote ="Richie"There are legal things that can happen. The defender can go for the ball himself and if level can of course shoulder barge across.'" />
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.
|
|
Quote ="Richie"There are legal things that can happen. The defender can go for the ball himself and if level can of course shoulder barge across.'" />
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.
| |
|
| | |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 22777 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
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
|
|
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 Chairman | 1210 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Aug 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2015 | Feb 2013 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
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.
|
|
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 Chairman | 28357 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| May 2024 | Oct 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
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 ...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.
|
|
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 ...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 Owner | 5397 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2004 | 21 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Apr 2011 | Jul 2010 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
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.
|
|
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 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Oct 2004 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Oct 2024 | May 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
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?
|
|
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?
| |
|
| | | |
| |
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 - 2025 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
|
|
| POSTS | ONLINE | REGISTRATIONS | RECORD |
|---|
| 19.67M | 532 | 80,283 | 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.
|
|
|
