@tiger5150 completely a different technique!!
Doesn’t matter. You have to have a black and white rule otherwise you risk having a repeat of that type of injury. It’s the same as the shoulder charge rule. Doesn’t matter if you do it safely still a penalty.
You just can't make contact with the legs, it was unfortunate but you can't do it.
I'm not arguing it's not a penalty, I'm arguing you can't coach or instruct players to avoid those plays.
What annoys me is the push in the back of Brooks, where the SMH reports today that the refs can be heard discussing it in the try-check replay, and the ref says "he stopped moving, went to block" as if that is justification for a push in the back in defence. Brooks has every right to hold his ground or slow down in defence; he is under no obligation to move out of the way of an attacker (he cannot move in front of an attacker, but doesn't have to move out of the way - just like basketball).
So we can accept that legs contact on a kicker is 100% a penalty, no interpretation invited. But so is a push in the back on a defender. Particularly a defender within 10 metres of a loose ball that results in a try-scoring play.
@jirskyr respectfully disagree . You pull out before you make the dive . You just don’t go for it . If you have to leave your feet the risk is too great .
And I don’t want to make out like I know boats , because I never played anywhere near nrl , but I was told the golden rule with charge downs when I was a kid is never lose your feet . You basically take yourself out of the play, and limit if not remove any chance of getting the ball back . So tactically it’s never made sense , and it makes even less sense to dive in 2023 with the rules around contact with the legs . If you gotta dive the risk -reward is too great .
Mate staying on your feet makes no difference, that has been made clear enough by the NRL. It's not about diving or staying upright, you can't make any kind of contact now on a bloke in the act of kicking. They are even penalising players now for wrap-up bear-hug style "safe" tackles, there were two last night (Sat night) - particularly the Royce Hunt one on Reynolds.
We just have to accept the new instruction to players is you can shadow but not contact a kicker - it's just too risky to attempt any kind of tackle or charge down. In the mad scramble for field goal defence, I wouldn't even know how to instruct an NRL player now.
You just can't make contact with the legs, it was unfortunate but you can't do it.
I'm not arguing it's not a penalty, I'm arguing you can't coach or instruct players to avoid those plays.
What annoys me is the push in the back of Brooks, where the SMH reports today that the refs can be heard discussing it in the try-check replay, and the ref says "he stopped moving, went to block" as if that is justification for a push in the back in defence. Brooks has every right to hold his ground or slow down in defence; he is under no obligation to move out of the way of an attacker (he cannot move in front of an attacker, but doesn't have to move out of the way - just like basketball).
So we can accept that legs contact on a kicker is 100% a penalty, no interpretation invited. But so is a push in the back on a defender. Particularly a defender within 10 metres of a loose ball that results in a try-scoring play.
I agree Brooks being pushed should have been a penalty.
In memory of Geoff Chisholm (1965-2022)
@jirskyr respectfully disagree . You pull out before you make the dive . You just don’t go for it . If you have to leave your feet the risk is too great .
And I don’t want to make out like I know boats , because I never played anywhere near nrl , but I was told the golden rule with charge downs when I was a kid is never lose your feet . You basically take yourself out of the play, and limit if not remove any chance of getting the ball back . So tactically it’s never made sense , and it makes even less sense to dive in 2023 with the rules around contact with the legs . If you gotta dive the risk -reward is too great .Mate staying on your feet makes no difference, that has been made clear enough by the NRL. It's not about diving or staying upright, you can't make any kind of contact now on a bloke in the act of kicking. They are even penalising players now for wrap-up bear-hug style "safe" tackles, there were two last night (Sat night) - particularly the Royce Hunt one on Reynolds.
We just have to accept the new instruction to players is you can shadow but not contact a kicker - it's just too risky to attempt any kind of tackle or charge down. In the mad scramble for field goal defence, I wouldn't even know how to instruct an NRL player now.
Staying on your feet makes a massive difference, you have control of your direction and momentum and can change direction. Once you dive you have lost this ability, you can no longer prevent contact. That is the difference.
In memory of Geoff Chisholm (1965-2022)
@tiger5150 completely a different technique!!
Thats kind of the point. Once you are diving at the legs, you have no control over the outcome and that is the reason for the rule. IP dived at him, and hit his legs. That is a penalty every day and even though in this case its pretty benign and there is little chance of injury, thats not the point. the rule is there for a reason.
They are even penalising players now for wrap-up bear-hug style "safe" tackles, there were two last night (Sat night) - particularly the Royce Hunt one on Reynolds.
I dont know why they havent been penalising the "bear hug" from day one. Its late and takes teh kicker out of the game and therefore does not allow the kicker to run and put players on side. It has always driven me mad watching a defender just grab the kicker anyway ages after he has kicked it and as long as its a cuddle its OK? It takes a player out of action in a late tackle and prevents the kicker playing others onside. I think it has been a deliberate tactic.
I dont know why they havent been penalising the "bear hug" from day one. Its late and takes teh kicker out of the game and therefore does not allow the kicker to run and put players on side. It has always driven me mad watching a defender just grab the kicker anyway ages after he has kicked it and as long as its a cuddle its OK? It takes a player out of action in a late tackle and prevents the kicker playing others onside. I think it has been a deliberate tactic.
Pretty good point that I have never considered.
In memory of Geoff Chisholm (1965-2022)
They are even penalising players now for wrap-up bear-hug style "safe" tackles, there were two last night (Sat night) - particularly the Royce Hunt one on Reynolds.
I dont know why they havent been penalising the "bear hug" from day one. Its late and takes teh kicker out of the game and therefore does not allow the kicker to run and put players on side. It has always driven me mad watching a defender just grab the kicker anyway ages after he has kicked it and as long as its a cuddle its OK? It takes a player out of action in a late tackle and prevents the kicker playing others onside. I think it has been a deliberate tactic.
I dont know if the ref's would even look to see if the kicker runs them onside. You see penalties given for offside and they never even look to see where the kicker is at
Top 8 2023
yeah same with a head butt… however Bateman could have been pinged for that the other night. But common sense prevailed.@tiger5150 completely a different technique!!
Doesn’t matter. You have to have a black and white rule otherwise you risk having a repeat of that type of injury. It’s the same as the shoulder charge rule. Doesn’t matter if you do it safely still a penalty.
yeah same with a head butt… however Bateman could have been pinged for that the other night. But common sense prevailed.@tiger5150 completely a different technique!!
Doesn’t matter. You have to have a black and white rule otherwise you risk having a repeat of that type of injury. It’s the same as the shoulder charge rule. Doesn’t matter if you do it safely still a penalty.
Not sure what head butt you are talking about so can’t comment on that situation
yeah same with a head butt… however Bateman could have been pinged for that the other night. But common sense prevailed.@tiger5150 completely a different technique!!
Doesn’t matter. You have to have a black and white rule otherwise you risk having a repeat of that type of injury. It’s the same as the shoulder charge rule. Doesn’t matter if you do it safely still a penalty.
It is not against the rules to accidently headbutt (headclash). It is against the rules to come in contact with the legs of a kicker, accidental or not. Not sure what is debatable about it?
@jirskyr respectfully disagree . You pull out before you make the dive . You just don’t go for it . If you have to leave your feet the risk is too great .
And I don’t want to make out like I know boats , because I never played anywhere near nrl , but I was told the golden rule with charge downs when I was a kid is never lose your feet . You basically take yourself out of the play, and limit if not remove any chance of getting the ball back . So tactically it’s never made sense , and it makes even less sense to dive in 2023 with the rules around contact with the legs . If you gotta dive the risk -reward is too great .Mate staying on your feet makes no difference, that has been made clear enough by the NRL. It's not about diving or staying upright, you can't make any kind of contact now on a bloke in the act of kicking. They are even penalising players now for wrap-up bear-hug style "safe" tackles, there were two last night (Sat night) - particularly the Royce Hunt one on Reynolds.
We just have to accept the new instruction to players is you can shadow but not contact a kicker - it's just too risky to attempt any kind of tackle or charge down. In the mad scramble for field goal defence, I wouldn't even know how to instruct an NRL player now.
Staying on your feet makes a massive difference, you have control of your direction and momentum and can change direction. Once you dive you have lost this ability, you can no longer prevent contact. That is the difference.
Affecting a charge down whilst staying on your feet does not give you adequate control or ability to pull out. Of course it gives you more control than diving, but if you are far enough away from a kicker to pull out of the attempt, you were never going to charge it down anyway. Players don't affect a successful charge down without following through on their run. Additionally now, you can't make any kind of contact with a kicker, even the careful "hug" type tackle where you arrive a tiny bit late and acknowledge this by not decking the kicker. That is why I say it makes no difference.
It used to only be clearly late or clearly dangerous / mid-air legs contact that they outlawed. Royce Hunt on the weekend didn't leave his feet, didn't arrive late, didn't flatten Reynolds, but got done because he touched Reynolds in the air. I don't legitimately think Hunt had enough time to pull up simply because he remained on his feet. I don't even think he had enough time for mental calculations do consider any other action aside from catching Reynolds after making contact.
I think now the only thing that will make a difference is players practising trajectories that don't align with the kicker. You will need to charge down from an angle or from distance, because if you get too close to the kicker (especially early in the kick) then you are a very high chance of making contact. They used to allow a lot of the incidental contact to play on, but not any more.
The reason they used to tell people to keep their feet for a charge down is because you want to regather the ball. There's no point smothering a kick if you fall over and the opposition simply runs back and retrieves it. And in older times, for FG defence you only had to touch the football, not stop it going between the posts.
"Staying on your feet" is not reducing the incidence of penalties for contact with kickers. Royce Hunt stayed on his feet last weekend and still got done.
