Hayne-Slater Rule
- Thread starter QUEENSLANDER
- Start date
BroncoMatt
QCup Player
- Mar 4, 2008
- 959
- 0
The refs cracked down big time on this in Last Saturday's trial.
I thought it was strange they were penalising for "downtown"
What's next, Halfbacks pinned for not feeding the ball in the middle of the scrum?
The NRL..tacking the big issues.
I thought it was strange they were penalising for "downtown"
What's next, Halfbacks pinned for not feeding the ball in the middle of the scrum?
The NRL..tacking the big issues.
Anonymous person
Banned User
- Dec 16, 2008
- 4,635
- 932
theres no doubt that this is the only reason the rule was brought in.Coxy said:
- Mar 7, 2008
- 13,620
- 10,547
The new interpretation will only last a short while. This is how it'll go.....
Ref blows penalty for his 'version' of the supposed offence...it affects the game or result....Gould and co shout no, no ,no ,no and the ref finds himself in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons...they (refs) hate that and so keep their heads down for the rest of the year until..pretty well everyone has forgotten it's a 'new rule' they brought in.
Probably as a result of the difficulty involved with enforcing hard and fast rules on a largely subjective event we have to accept that if the majority of us feel something is amiss , we will require a victim. A victim or victims to blame. In most cases a ref and an administration board.
Within the referee each knows his (NRL contracted ergo the masculine) actual view differs from the overwhelming majority view due in no small part to his proximity to the play. His personal view ( of an offence ) may closely align with the masses and the media alike but when on field he is the only person on the planet to see the offence from that standpoint.
That means if he is to 'do the right thing ' by his employer and follow his masters wishes he must pass judgment , his view, his opinion but unlike his master he cannot avoid censure. Being human he'll avoid it if he can. So if the rule gets a few squealing loudly the refs will simply backoff, they've done it everytime before and who can blame them.
Ref blows penalty for his 'version' of the supposed offence...it affects the game or result....Gould and co shout no, no ,no ,no and the ref finds himself in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons...they (refs) hate that and so keep their heads down for the rest of the year until..pretty well everyone has forgotten it's a 'new rule' they brought in.
Probably as a result of the difficulty involved with enforcing hard and fast rules on a largely subjective event we have to accept that if the majority of us feel something is amiss , we will require a victim. A victim or victims to blame. In most cases a ref and an administration board.
Within the referee each knows his (NRL contracted ergo the masculine) actual view differs from the overwhelming majority view due in no small part to his proximity to the play. His personal view ( of an offence ) may closely align with the masses and the media alike but when on field he is the only person on the planet to see the offence from that standpoint.
That means if he is to 'do the right thing ' by his employer and follow his masters wishes he must pass judgment , his view, his opinion but unlike his master he cannot avoid censure. Being human he'll avoid it if he can. So if the rule gets a few squealing loudly the refs will simply backoff, they've done it everytime before and who can blame them.
- Mar 7, 2008
- 13,620
- 10,547
Common ground...who'd a thought Coxy ?? [icon_lol1.
Watch enough and it becomes obvious hey.......so many grey areas and to enforce rules stringently with such a scenario as we have means you must have a scapegoat when things don't run smoothly....and refs don't want to be in the firing line but most often are. No surprise that they react as you and I would....
Watch enough and it becomes obvious hey.......so many grey areas and to enforce rules stringently with such a scenario as we have means you must have a scapegoat when things don't run smoothly....and refs don't want to be in the firing line but most often are. No surprise that they react as you and I would....
Exactly. It's happened so many times before. Think back to the "play the ball with your foot" assaults they had in 2000 I think it was. There were like 5 penalties a game for it, and it was so inconsistent.
After about a month the referees stopped doing it...the players didn't change anything.
The kneejerk reaction of the NRL to perceived problems is ludicrous. Sometimes there's not even a real problem, it's just someone (usually Gus Gould) bleating about it.
After about a month the referees stopped doing it...the players didn't change anything.
The kneejerk reaction of the NRL to perceived problems is ludicrous. Sometimes there's not even a real problem, it's just someone (usually Gus Gould) bleating about it.
