Nothing frustrates me more than ignorance, especially when it comes to sporting matters. So it pains me when I see commentators, pundits and fans shooting their mouths off about topics on which they have failed to properly inform themselves.
This is a particular problem when it comes to public comment on NRL matches. So many people are eager to give their opinion on refereeing decisions made in games, when they haven’t even bothered to find out what the actual rules say.
For example, how many, even among professional rugby league journalists, know the rule regarding knock-ons?
Specifically, that it states:
Rule 28. A knock-on shall be ruled in any of the following circumstances:
i) a player loses control of the ball, which travels towards his opponent’s goal-line, and does not regather it before it makes contact with the ground or with another player
ii) the ball makes contact with a player’s hand or arm and travels towards his opponent’s goal-line before making contact with the ground or with another player
iii) the ball makes contact with a player’s hand or arm and travels backwards, but the referee thinks it looked pretty bad
iv) a player fumbles but regains control without the ball touching anything or anyone else, but the referee reckons they don’t deserve to keep it
Now, maybe if people knew that rule, there’d be a lot less angst over so-called ‘incorrect’ knock-on calls. In a similar vein, the rule on forward passes explicitly states that:
Rule 29. The referee shall rule a forward pass every fifteenth time a pass is thrown forward during a game.
A knock on is whatever the ref says a knock on is. (Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)
Simple, right? And further to that, when it comes to the bunker:
Rule 29A. The bunker is unable to determine whether a ball has travelled forward, unless the ball hits the ground – this is due to the fact that the human brain has been proven incapable of telling the difference between “forward” and “backward” unless grass is involved.
Of course, the ignorance isn’t restricted to issues of ball control. How many of us, when we comment on high tackles, know that the relevant rule is:
Rule 34. A penalty shall be awarded for a high tackle if the tackler makes contact with the ball carrier above the shoulders, except in the following cases:
i) the tackler touched any part of the body of the ball carrier before hitting them in the head
ii) the tackler is wrapping his arms around the ball carrier’s head and neck as part of a legitimate attempt to make him uncomfortable
iii) the ball carrier is shorter than the tackler
iv) a majority of television commentators agree that there “wasn’t much in it”
v) the tackler is known to be a decent bloke and would therefore have his character unfairly besmirched if anyone accused him of foul play
It’s also important to keep in mind that, while the above lays out the circumstances in which a high tackle can be penalised, further punishment for a tackler is laid out in:
Rule 34B. A player shall be sent from the field if it is deemed that his actions were a) dangerous; b) deliberate; and c) occurring in the one game a year that the NRL head of operations hit when he threw a dart at the fixture
Hopefully, now that the facts about NRL rules have been made accessible to all here, there’ll be no more uninformed comment from the cheap seats!
wilbas
Roar Rookie
what about the rules applying strictly against a team leading by 20 points...called wind in the sails or the ''bill harrigan grand stand finish''
wilbas
Roar Rookie
you did not talk about the yellow zone in the car park around the refs car that by the grey rules allows him a friendly trip home.
wilbas
Roar Rookie
we see Friday night footbal penrith vs storm...storm winger get an awkward ball that he allows to roll up his body but it hits his upper arm and went forward and in an attempt to control it he pushes backwards between his legs... melbourne challenge the rule on field and bunker said he knocked it forward but negated the knock on by when he juggled the ball it went backwards....figure that...if you don't control the ball the initial knock forward is the ruling. we are even seeing refs or bunker saying a player lost the ball into opponent when he is facing his own goal line and knocks the ball backwards into opponent and the ball came back to his grasp...it can't be a knock on regardless if it hits opponent if it goes backwards...
Tony
Roar Guru
What do you mean? :shocked:
Tony
Roar Guru
I think Uncle Nick may have already done it
HR
Roar Rookie
Also the best way to watch the cricket.
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
Fantastic read Ben, enjoyed it enormously. :thumbup: :thumbup:
Jim
Guest
I wonder how many really believed it.
edward
Guest
Ben Genius but the tragedy is the mob will just laugh, shrug shoulders and move on till next week where they will complain again. To be fair to the refs the laws and punishment are too repressive so any penalty , set restart usually ends up in a try or near try so a refs borderline decision changes the game but then we see more press for coaches whinging for the rest of the week.
Kman
Roar Rookie
This plain English explanation is incredibly helpful and clears up a lot misconceptions! Could you do one on the salary cap, please, Ben? :laughing:
Chris Love
Roar Guru
I thought it used to read, intentionally, carelessly or recklessly. There are plenty of tackles where a defender attempts to make contact in a completely legal way yet after they launch into the tackle the attacking player drops his body height (for a variety of reasons). The defender hasn’t got time to react to that. It’s impossible to pull out. Yet high tackle gets penalised.
Succhi
Roar Rookie
Ben - so now we know who has been mentoring Cameron Smith all these years! ????
Tony
Roar Guru
Love your work Noosa
TIGER
Roar Rookie
I turn the sound off.
mushi
Roar Guru
On the high tackles it feels like at least every other game has the bunker ruling no try due to grounding but the replay has the ball carrier getting smacked in the face or looking like he's been caught in an MMA submission
Nick
Roar Guru
What about the "let the game flow" exemptions? Also known as the Gould-Johns law?
LeftRight
Guest
What about the rules concerning scrums - (i) Scrums are not a contested restart of play, they are a rest period. (ii) The half back must not feed the ball into the tunnel between the front row. Only second row or third row feeds are allowed to ensure a fair restart of play. (iii) Only very, very rarely is one scrum pack allowed to push against the other pack. Refer to (i) above - scrums are a rest period, and scrum wins against "the feed" are to be discouraged.
Nat
Roar Rookie
I'll try that this weekend. Cheers
farkurnell
Roar Rookie
Thanks for pointing that out Nico .one of my failings in life- I should have been using the Garden instead of the wall.Puts a whole new meaning to Urban Sustainability
Dexter The Hamster
Roar Rookie
Thanks for the tip JGK, first I've heard of this site. Nice one.