Re: Rule change needed : Wed Aug 08, 2012 11:45 am  

For those saying that a ball has accidentally been grounded think of this.

If a ball is kicked into the in goal area, how does a defensive player pick up the ball without grounding it. If the ball is on the deck then as soon as a hand touches the ball whether intentional or not that is grounded as hand ball and grass are all in contact with the defensive player. So taken to the level where intentions are not required, then no kick in goal once the ball is on the deck can ever result in anything less than a drop out.

[Fantastic Mr Catpiss]

Re: Rule change needed : Wed Aug 08, 2012 12:16 pm  

Poyser11 wrote:

I don't think the rule needs changing per se, just a bit of common sense applied. There was no pressure on him and he clearly didn't deliberately ground the ball, so he should just be able to get up and play on...

Agree with this 100%! I noticed Wire doing that to slow the game down, my mate was telling me Bradford did it to Widnes on Sunday as well, in what was a close game and probably would have made a difference! Also remember Wigan trying it against us in a play-off a few years ago. It's poor play and shouldn't be rewarded. Nothing clever about it, despite what Stevo tells you!

We weren't just hoofing it dead like danny brough though, we did it 3 times in the second half, twice it just crept over the deadball line, and the third time it stood up in goal, which i'd imagine was the target for the first couple of kicks.

You're right some teams do it, we're not one of them, it was more beneficial to keep the ball in play and keep saints active.

[Uncle Rico]

Re: Rule change needed : Wed Aug 08, 2012 1:09 pm  

Albion wrote:

How are they comparable?

Errr because they were both mistakes?

Makinson, we are all presuming didn't mean to ground the ball, though we all agree technically that he did don't we? Atkins didn't presumably mean to make a forward pass, but, did.

They were both mistakes and as much as Makinson didn't have to ground the ball as he wasn't under undue pressure, Riley didn't need to receive a forward pass to score, it was a shoe in.

Also, I'm not one clamouring for rule changes on this ridiculous thread, even though we had some points chalked off rather than accepting a needless drop out.

I was trying to pose the question, where will it all end that's all.

Re: Rule change needed : Wed Aug 08, 2012 2:04 pm  

Uncle Rico wrote:

Errr because they were both mistakes?

Makinson, we are all presuming didn't mean to ground the ball, though we all agree technically that he did don't we? Atkins didn't presumably mean to make a forward pass, but, did.

They were both mistakes and as much as Makinson didn't have to ground the ball as he wasn't under undue pressure, Riley didn't need to receive a forward pass to score, it was a shoe in.

Also, I'm not one clamouring for rule changes on this ridiculous thread, even though we had some points chalked off rather than accepting a needless drop out.

I was trying to pose the question, where will it all end that's all.

You are just being childish and making up silly examples because you've got nothing positive to contribute. It's not a moaning thread because we lost, it's a suggestion that perhaps we could improve the game by tweaking a couple of the rules. The grounding it over your own line one isn't too much of a big deal, it just seems daft to punish a player for picking the ball up off the floor, but the hoofing it dead is and should be changed.

Re: Rule change needed : Wed Aug 08, 2012 2:18 pm  

Uncle Rico wrote:

Errr because they were both mistakes?

Makinson, we are all presuming didn't mean to ground the ball, though we all agree technically that he did don't we? Atkins didn't presumably mean to make a forward pass, but, did.

They were both mistakes and as much as Makinson didn't have to ground the ball as he wasn't under undue pressure, Riley didn't need to receive a forward pass to score, it was a shoe in.

Also, I'm not one clamouring for rule changes on this ridiculous thread, even though we had some points chalked off rather than accepting a needless drop out.

I was trying to pose the question, where will it all end that's all.

So, if I have this right, you are saying that a forward pass is the same as a player picking the ball up (with full control) and slipping in the in-goal?

Use your common sense pal.

You intend to pass the ball, you don't intend to slip and ground the ball!!

Re: Rule change needed : Wed Aug 08, 2012 3:24 pm  

The Saints fans seem to want to make a very simple rule (if you've grounded the ball, the ball is grounded) into a complex one open to all sorts of interpretation.

All this because Makinson put the wrong studs in.

Re: Rule change needed : Wed Aug 08, 2012 3:52 pm  

just_browny wrote:

The Saints fans seem to want to make a very simple rule (if you've grounded the ball, the ball is grounded) into a complex one open to all sorts of interpretation.

All this because Makinson put the wrong studs in.

Is 'common sense' a complex interpretation for you?

[Uncle Rico]

Re: Rule change needed : Wed Aug 08, 2012 4:03 pm  

just_browny wrote:

The Saints fans seem to want to make a very simple rule (if you've grounded the ball, the ball is grounded) into a complex one open to all sorts of interpretation.

All this because Makinson put the wrong studs in.

Exactly JB, and then if they still disagree they say it's childish? BTW I wasn't trying to compare a forward pass with a grounding intentional, or otherwise, but, was using two separate incidents from our recent encounter to say mistakes happen, get over it.

Apparently, I have made a mistake by not agreeing and realising the error of my ways...perhaps the mods should change the rules, don't come on here unless you agree?

Re: Rule change needed : Wed Aug 08, 2012 4:12 pm  

We're just going to go around in circles, you clearly are missing my point, so I'll just leave it at that.

[Uncle Rico]

Re: Rule change needed : Wed Aug 08, 2012 4:19 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

You are just being childish and making up silly examples because you've got nothing positive to contribute. It's not a moaning thread because we lost, it's a suggestion that perhaps we could improve the game by tweaking a couple of the rules. The grounding it over your own line one isn't too much of a big deal, it just seems daft to punish a player for picking the ball up off the floor, but the hoofing it dead is and should be changed.

It Saddens me that you see it that way, the "silly example" you mentioned was a mistake by us that happened in the same game so not completely random. I was highlighting this by another if not directly comparable example.

Perhaps I have given you and some of the other contributors too much credit by accepting that it is reasonable to put forward an opinion that the theory to rule change to absolve people from being punished for making mistakes is wrong.

Also, was the ball hoofed dead? I think not, it was in goal meaning that Makinson had to play it and in short he messed up.