It is my understanding that it is illegal to block in the ruck. Penrith have 2 players rush in to stand next to the play the ball to act as blockers every time the ball is passed to Cleary to kick. This is illegal. If Cleary kicks a field goal I would immediately issue a captains challenge against the goal based on the illegal blockers at the ruck. It could even be done after a Cleary spiral bomb because they will surely have a player blocking each side of the ruck. Even though Atkins in the bunker is a Penrith Life member he has to adjudiacte based on the rules. He would have to disallow any try or field goal if they use blockers at the ruck....which they are ceratinly going to do.

You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!

Join 1Eyed Eel

Votes: 0
Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • Of course Cleary claims it legal it may be if a player is clearing the ruck but not if a player runs in to a blocking position. Run into the bastards draw attention to it. 

  • Billy Slater had a good suggestion. 
    On the 5th tackle the markers go early, ref will likely call '6 again' however Cleary will have kicked the ball (or dropped it due to pressure) before he can react to the 6 again call. 
    QLD did this in Origin and it worked an absolute treat. 

    • Hard to replicate in club land as for reasons only know to Queenslanders, the ten meters becomes 5 in origin. In club land, which a gf mainly is, you normally get ten meters. Cleary stands well back. Your not getting near him. I'm not saying don't try, but I don't think it will stop him. You have to plan for him getting that kick away as well as trying to stop it.

  • https://www.nrl.com/siteassets/operations/documentation/nrl_laws_in...

    Section 15j page number 19 "THE WALL".

    Some NRL commutators this week have been praising Ivan Clearly for adapting and putting a second player to make the defenders run and ARC to get at Cleary. The rules clearly stats "move directly towards".

    Agree with Slug run straight into the block player but make sure he is in the path of a direct line to Nathan, then say I did not have a direct line.Quote the bloody page number and rule from there own handbook.
    Section 15j page number 19 "THE WALL".

    It need to be challenged but timing is imperative, we don't want to waste or challenge because I am not confident in the NRL making the correct call as per the rule above.

    I say we only do it if absolutely necessary because personally I think we waste to many challenges on subjective crap ie loose carry. Save it for the howlers.

    10831168898?profile=RESIZE_930x

    https://www.nrl.com/siteassets/operations/documentation/nrl_laws_interpretations_2020.pdf
    • It says two or more form a wall (side by side).

      If the two players are standing slightly off center to each other does that then mean they aren't "side by side"?
      That would still form an effective wall.

      If side by side is the letter of the law, Penref will use that to their advantage and of course the bunker will back them up.

      • Good question, I noticed that but then thought the onus would be on them to ensure that they did not deny a direct path to the kicker.
        So many rules in our game are subjective and go against the spirit of what that rule was initial intended for. Ie tackling in the air was initially to ensure players didn't get flipped.
        This rule was initially intended to ensure defending teams had an opportunity to put pressure on the kickers. 

        Agree Penrith would state the side by side and we would more then likely lose our one captains challenge.

      • I recon that's how they are getting away with it.. they are not standing side by side.

         

  • That's why Clearly gets his kicks away so easily and the Panthers have been getting away with this for awhile now. Hope it's pulled up and penalized in the Grand Final 

  • I have it on good authority that we have been practising the flying wedge at training as our own little block play . 

    • What's the flying wedge💩 not related to the wedgy 🟤💩🟤 I hope

This reply was deleted.

More stuff to read

LB replied to Troy Wade's discussion Round 1 v Storm
"At the end of the day they are an entertainment business. It is true and the way of the sport. Same with the comment that TV runs the league. That is also true and is the reason for where the game is in terms of money. 
I do feel though regardless…"
3 minutes ago
Randy Handlinger replied to Troy Wade's discussion Round 1 v Storm
"We know what to expect from last year."
31 minutes ago
Randy Handlinger replied to Troy Wade's discussion Round 1 v Storm
"They try and put on the best games possible for views.
This right here is the problem. Fucking this whole "managed for entertainment" shit idea right off...vegas too...and that would allow a randomized  draw.
Are you not entertained?
 "
33 minutes ago
LB replied to Troy Wade's discussion Round 1 v Storm
"I mean every year we say "this is where Melbourne fall" and they never do.......but there has been a sort of exodus happening, Bellamy not sure if staying and looks tired. Something at Melbourne at the moment seems a tiny bit off.
Getting Tino will…"
42 minutes ago
More…