[Uncle Rico]

Re: Rule change needed : Wed Aug 08, 2012 4:24 pm  

Albion wrote:

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

Hey no worries, I wasn't being antagonistic, or "childish" btw.

Maybe you have missed my point by the same margin that you say I appear to have missed yours? Typing messages doesn't compete banter at the ground or after match pint in hand.

Good luck

Re: Rule change needed : Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:43 pm  

I think a few people here have to grasp what they are suggesting.

Many people here (Albion included) are suggesting that it was a complete accident that Makinson grounded the ball; well the comparison of a knock on in this situation is perfectly apt. Players often unintentionally knock a ball on and so, therefore, there is an argument that as long as the player didn't mean to knock on they get another go. This is just an adaption of a Rugby Union rule, in which they clarify intentional knock ons. It really is no sillier than the suggestion made about grounding the ball in in goal areas.

Secondly, on a broader point, can you not see how silly it is to confuse a quite simple rule? Makinson, you are assuming, slipped and made a mistake, it would cheapen the game infinitely to ignore that; especially when it actually may have worked in his favor. By that I mean, the rule regarding grounding a ball in the in goal area is a rule that provides another benefit to the defending team. It is a more secure way of making the ball dead (and therefore stopping a try) than knocking it over the line. There has already been a concession made to make defending a kick easier. Why make it stupidly easy?

Furthermore, can you imagine the future situation, if a silly rule was introduced and there had to be a player confirmation of a ball grounding? Every fullback and winger in the league will be grounding the ball as soon as they catch it and then checking if they can get out of the in goal area. If they can, they run off and make yards and potentially score, if not and make a mistake resulting in a try for the offensive team, they claim they had already grounded it. This is just too stupid to talk about. Ex post Facto rulings simply don't have a place in any sport, at any level, never mind professional rugby league.

BTW, out of interest, has anyone advocating a convoluted rule change a few days ago changed their mind?

Re: Rule change needed : Wed Aug 08, 2012 6:02 pm  

jdrocket wrote:

I think a few people here have to grasp what they are suggesting.

Many people here (Albion included) are suggesting that it was a complete accident that Makinson grounded the ball; well the comparison of a knock on in this situation is perfectly apt. Players often unintentionally knock a ball on and so, therefore, there is an argument that as long as the player didn't mean to knock on they get another go. This is just an adaption of a Rugby Union rule, in which they clarify intentional knock ons. It really is no sillier than the suggestion made about grounding the ball in in goal areas.

Secondly, on a broader point, can you not see how silly it is to confuse a quite simple rule? Makinson, you are assuming, slipped and made a mistake, it would cheapen the game infinitely to ignore that; especially when it actually may have worked in his favor. By that I mean, the rule regarding grounding a ball in the in goal area is a rule that provides another benefit to the defending team. It is a more secure way of making the ball dead (and therefore stopping a try) than knocking it over the line. There has already been a concession made to make defending a kick easier. Why make it stupidly easy?

Furthermore, can you imagine the future situation, if a silly rule was introduced and there had to be a player confirmation of a ball grounding? Every fullback and winger in the league will be grounding the ball as soon as they catch it and then checking if they can get out of the in goal area. If they can, they run off and make yards and potentially score, if not and make a mistake resulting in a try for the offensive team, they claim they had already grounded it. This is just too stupid to talk about. Ex post Facto rulings simply don't have a place in any sport, at any level, never mind professional rugby league.

BTW, out of interest, has anyone advocating a convoluted rule change a few days ago changed their mind?

I have no problem with the grounding unintentionally if that's the rule, but then surely every pick up in the in goal area is an unintentional grounding of the ball, because as soon as your hands have touched the ball, then the ball is by definition grounded. If you can do it by accident, then picking the ball up is the same movement as grounding unintentionally?

If you say well the hands have to be on the top of the ball, then a judgement would have to be made were the top of the ball stops and the sides start. You can score a try with a brush of the fingers on any part of the ball, so surely by the same measure as soon as any fingers brush the ball in the motion of picking it up, the ball is dead.

Re: Rule change needed : Wed Aug 08, 2012 6:19 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

I have no problem with the grounding unintentionally if that's the rule, but then surely every pick up in the in goal area is an unintentional grounding of the ball, because as soon as your hands have touched the ball, then the ball is by definition grounded. If you can do it by accident, then picking the ball up is the same movement as grounding unintentionally?

If you say well the hands have to be on the top of the ball, then a judgement would have to be made were the top of the ball stops and the sides start. You can score a try with a brush of the fingers on any part of the ball, so surely by the same measure as soon as any fingers brush the ball in the motion of picking it up, the ball is dead.

But, as I have said else where, Makinson couldn't have grounded the ball any better than he did. He slid over, holding the ball close to the body, securely, and if he had done it down the other end of the field it would have been a simple try.

He made an effort to exert downward pressure on the ground with the ball. There are many times in the field of play where there is a loose pass and a player has to pick the ball up off the floor using skill, so as to not knock the ball on. If the ball is moving, catch it in the air. OR make a scooping motion away from the dead ball line, if it is still; I would assume.

Whatever grey area is suggested, the best option is the leave the rule as it is and allow the referees to use common sense (which they usually do in a match). If, on Monday, Makinson would have picked the ball up without pressing it to the floor and ran at the Warrington defense, nothing would have happened. The fact that he gained control of the ball and then slid over and perfectly grounded the ball meant that he, shock horror, grounded the ball. That is what is ultimately being discussed here.

Re: Rule change needed : Wed Aug 08, 2012 7:20 pm  

I don't buy the notion that if someone picks the ball up off the floor, they are grounding the ball. It's the sort of invented interpretation that only 'becomes the rule' when it suits certain teams.

Just like it became the rule the other night that if Meli touches the ball with both hands, the bomb is defused.

Re: Rule change needed : Wed Aug 08, 2012 8:04 pm  

Uncle Rico wrote:

Hey no worries, I wasn't being antagonistic, or "childish" btw.

Maybe you have missed my point by the same margin that you say I appear to have missed yours? Typing messages doesn't compete banter at the ground or after match pint in hand.

Good luck

I probably am, it's what happens over written communication such as forums like you say!

I hold no grudges, I don't think you can on RLFans!