Interesting twist on the 40:20 rule last night with Cummins citing the ball boy's actions as a deciding factor in disallowing a Parramatta try in the 78th minute.
Researching the rule reveals two critical issues,
1. The ball boy actions are in no way referenced in the Rule 9.8 and
2. no element of the Rule was breached.
Cummins and the NRL must be forced to investigate this incident and the subsequent
focus on the actions of the ball boy, which are unfounded, unnecessary and absolutely out of order.
This and another questionable decision directly impacted the result of the game and quite possibly the Eels chances of getting into the final eight.
The inconsistency of referee handling of this rule in particular is concerning and players and club officials are at a loss to predict the expected behaviour.
Even referees on the same field seem to disagree! At one point in the game; one referee is distinctly heard calling "not held" as Semi Radrara ran through a Bulldogs tackler only to be sent back once he had broken through with a clear run at the try line.
One could be forgiven for developing paranoia and a theory that perhaps there is something more going on here. It's time the NRL is held accountable for the inconsistencies.
Two years ago I actually stopped watching League for a while due to inconsistency and some of the questionable results we were seeing. With gambling now such a big business with the game, it makes me question whether Rugby League is actually no different to watching the wrestling. At least with wrestling you know up front that it is a choreographed match where the winner is predetermined. Are we NRL faithful simply suckers for expecting a fair game?
Last night Parramatta was the better side, they showed tenacity and spark and despite the score-line were clear winners. The Eels can hold their heads high which is something the NRL and Ben Cummins cannot! Shame that doesn't give them 2 competition points.
Replies
In the NRL Handbook, sent out to every club, there is a point about ball kids.
“Ball persons must place and leave the ball on the touchline at the point where the ball crossed the line and next to the touch judge. Ball persons MUST NOT under any circumstances, throw the ball into the field of play or to a Player close to the touch line.”
That is a "Guideline". Not a hard and fast rule. As BA said in the presser, how many times do we see the ball boy pass the ball to the player and it's play on. It's so inconsistent, it is ridiculous. Once again, I question why a billion dollar game is being impacted by a non entity such as a ball boy.
Seriously dude, isn't that a lot of pressure for a kid? For the actions of a CHILD to influence the outcome of a game is a utterly ridiculous. For it to be considered anything else is a joke. I understand the guideline is there for the ball boys but I don't think the intention of it is to affect the outcome of a game. If so, selection and training of ball attendants need to be seriously reconsidered by all clubs. This allows a risk of opposition teams having the ability to undermine the outcome of all games by simply.. "making a mistake".
Guidelines are an addition to the rulebook.
They should be treated as a hard and fast rule.
And it's REALLY EASY to follow.
As to the times it's let go, then Parra do have a case, but why they would open the door to receiving such a call is beyond me.
What does it say in the rules is supposed to happen if the ball is thrown in by the ball boy? Is it supposed to go back to the ball boy to re-place it on the line? The fact that Vai was already at the sideline should have indicated that there was no real advantage. Considering the whole 40-20 thing is supposed to advantage the attacking team, the refs seemed to go out of their way to nullify this.
By the way, what is the actual benefit of resetting the tap?
Everybody keeps talking about the actions of the ballboys being the cause of this fiasco.
What about the actions of Vai Toutai who was motioning and yelling to the kid to pass him the football, which is against the rules?
Attributing this farce to the actions of the ballboy is a cover-up.
It was the actions of Vai that caused this whole thing, not the ballboy.
And Vai plays for Parra. Therefore, it was our players' actions and ignorance of the rules that cost us the game.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next