Never has so much been said and written about something so small but so wrong in the history of footy.
The Eels lost to the Dogs. The disallowed try that may have seen them win that match was a correct ruling – no question about it.
While the referees were not error-free in their performances, they were right about this incident.
The ball boy should not have thrown the ball to the Parramatta winger. They are instructed not to and it is part of their responsibilities to put the ball on the sideline. They all know that.
So do all the clubs, coaches and players – wingers included.
This problem could have been averted in four ways, either:
1. The ball boy ignoring the winger and doing as he knew he should – put the ball on the ground for the winger to pick it up;
2. The winger not asking the ball boy to pass it to him, but telling him to put the ball down on the sideline for him to pick up;
3. The touch judge immediately telling the referee that the proper procedure had not been followed;
4. The referee seeing all of that himself – as well as seeing that Chris Sandow had not tapped the ball with his foot, but his knee.
The aftermath could have been altogether different, instead of our sport being made to look amateurish.
In other aspects of footy there are also protocols to be followed. From free kicks after penalties have been kicked into touch, the ball boys must put the ball on the touch line – sounds familiar! It must be touched with the foot to re-start play.
From 20-metre kick re-starts, players cannot relay pass the ball for a quick tap. The attacking team can tap it or kick it long.
From a penalty, a quick tap can be taken on the mark by touching the ball with the foot. However a quick tap can be taken in some circumstances only – not from certain penalty types and never inside the opponents 10-metre area.
From goal line drop outs, teams must kick within a time period and from on or behind the goal line.
These are all rules of the game.
If Parramatta – and others who make accusatory remarks on and off the field – had taken more time to practice these 40/20 situations throughout their many training sessions, my guess is we could have saved a fair bit of embarrassment for everyone. And the Eels may now have another two points in the bag.
As a result we now have the craziest comments about a simple rule not being followed.
There are accusations of the incident being “a total mess”. Was it? No, it was a simple rule messed up because players didn’t know what the rule was or chose to break it.
There are accusations that the officials didn’t know what the rule was. Was this true? No, but they have momentarily missed the opportunity to stop it before it happened.
Finally, there were accusations that the committee who devised the rule had it wrong. This was followed by random commentary that the previous rule to re-start by scrum was ‘ok’ and shouldn’t have been amended.
How about this? Well no, because some of those same people are those that were, and still are in some cases, saying that defending players are taking too long to pack scrums.
In response to those wails of complaint from previous seasons, the rules committee wanted to reward and further incentivise kicking from inside the 40 metres.
By eliminating the extended delay in a re-start by scrum, to instead have the opportunity for a quicker tap on the scrum line after collecting the ball from the touchline was reward for skilful play!
For anyone wanting to lay the blame for this at the hands of a ball boy I suggest you take a good, hard look at yourself. I say the same to those blaming officials or rule makers.
However Parramatta would be well within their rights to be asking for explanations on the opening group of back-to-back penalties awarded against them. I called them out on the night. With the benefit of replays I am with Brad Arthur 100 per cent in his post-match comments.
Jack Smith
Roar Guru
Bit of an tippy-tappy rule. I'm an Eels supporter but the fact that a try was disallowed because a ballboy threw the ball to a winger (whom he probably admires as an Eels fan and being only 12, a hero) while Sandow tapped with knee and not foot...? What is NRL turning into? Tiny rules that really make little to no difference. However, don't know what Sandow was hoping to to by tapping with knee. By time he thought to do that he could have tapped with his foot. Daniel AFL and NRL both having issues this season with video ref/score review. Absolute joke for both.
Tigerdon
Roar Rookie
If it's "much to do about nothing" isn't this article just adding to the the debate?
Jimmy
Guest
I agree Brian , storm in a teacup , nothing to see here.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Chop - this also from the rule book: 40/20 rule 8. When a kick in general play and from inside a team’s 40 metre zone, finds touch (other than on the full) in the opposition’s 20 metre zone, the resulting tap kick restart will be awarded to the kicking team 20 metres in from touch opposite where the ball crossed the touch line, but no closer than 10 metres from the goal line. Sandow took the tap on the 20, the ball went out about 12 metres out. He took the tap off the mark.
The Barry
Roar Guru
I never suggested it was easy. It is a good piece of skill and has added excitement to the game but at the end of the day it's still just a touch finding kick. I'm glad there aren't regular tries scored from 40/20s. Nor should there be. The possession and territory are reward enough, if a team is good enough to score from there they will. If they're not good enough then advantage over. There shouldn't be anything approaching an expectation of a try because a team has kicked a 40/20. The measurement isn't just tries though. More often than not they change the momentum of a game. How many 40/20s have resulted in repeat sets which have led to tries? Suppose on Friday night that Sandow kicks his 40/20 in the 75th minute or whatever it was. The ballboy places the ball on the line, Sandow taps the ball correctly and on the mark and scores untouched. Is that really a 'fair' way to decide a game? All the Dogs forwards were sprinting back to get onside after 75 minutes. It was physically impossible for them to get back. I think it's a shocking way to determine the outcome of a game. Any other time a kick goes into touch (not on the full) play restarts with a scrum. Why should it be different for a 40/20? Put a time limit on the scrum. If it's not set within 30 seconds then let the attacking team take a quick tap. But do that for every scrum.
Brian smith
Guest
Yep
Brian smith
Guest
Great point
Brian smith
Guest
One mistake by one club not rule that's the problem
Epiquin
Roar Guru
I stand corrected. Damn them and their blue and white jackets!
Savva
Guest
Sorry buddy but that was an Eels home game with Eels ballboys, not that it was the kid's fault.
Jay (the other one)
Guest
A 12 year old boy did not determine the outcome. Parramatta not following the rules and getting pinged for it did.
AR
Guest
Of course 'incentivise' is a word - and correctly used in the article.
Daniel
Guest
Yes Brian agree with you but the NRL has created this problem by allowing the team a quick tap. That is why it is now a problem.
Epiquin
Roar Guru
I think the nightly news programs need to stop showing the footage. There is a unanimous consensus that this kid is not at fault and shouldn't be blamed, so why do they keep showing his face to everyone?
Epiquin
Roar Guru
Yes it is.
Epiquin
Roar Guru
Just a point of order, I believe as it was a Bulldogs home game, the Ball Boy was indeed a "Bulldogs Ball Boy"
Chop
Roar Guru
Rule was changed a while ago Speedy....See the definition from the NRL rules in my post above
Jack
Guest
I highly doubt the AFL even knows that this is an issue, let alone are laughing. They'd have enough of these 'little' problems to rectify. And that's what it is, a little problem. I don't mind having a little tradition like having the junior kids throwing the ball in, running the tee out or even towels and drinks. It would be massive honour for a kid to do it, he'd/she'd be up all night in anticipation. Don't want to make it too sterile. Wimbledon have ball kids, and one ran on in the middle of point. Either way there has to be human interaction to get the ball back on field, and the NRL prob don't have to pay a kid either. That night the protocol was found out, so I'm sure the NRL will fix it. But I don't mind the kids having a little interaction with the event
speedy2460
Guest
Once upon a time, a tap kick had to be with the foot and the hands had to be off the ball. What happened to that?
casper
Guest
In the end, the right decision was made. I'm not convinced that the bulldogs were actually caught out as I reckon a few defenders seemed aware that the touchy pointed out a breach so they never chased. The Eels had their chances & relied so much on getting the ball to Hayne that they sacrificed other opportunities that presented. The game just confirmed that there are very few true contendors when it gets to finals footy, neither of those sides can win the premiership. Bulldogs are pretenders living on past reputations while Eels are a couple of top players short of a good side. They both looked like teams that were more concerned with not losin than winning the game. Implementing these quick taps to speed up an already fast game has just given the refereee bashers from losing sides more opportunities to whinge. From what I see week to week, the defence is never back 10 metres when a 20M tap is taken yet the refs choose to ignore it, maybe because that first tackle made about 25M out is now a zero tackle which gives the side in possession 6 more.