Just before half time last night, the ref gave a scrum penalty to the Titans who sudsequently took a shot a goal and took the lead. I received a text from Slugg saying "aren't scrum penalties differential?", so this morning I googled NRL rules. It appears that scrum penalties ARE differential (no kick for goal) UNLESS if players break early from a scrum. (Also for foul language-is this a Church comp?) This once again leaves it wide open for a ref to decide a game based on an incorrect perception/decision. The rule was brought in following the 1976 Grand Final debacle when referee Cook constantly penaised John Kolc for second row feeds, giving Graham Eadie kick after kick for penalty goals. Many on here will remember that. You also Cannot hold the ball in the scrum (second rowers using their feet) to delay the ball coming out. In that scrum before half time, it is obvious that Titans held the ball in the scrum while we were ALL still packed in the scrum. The first offence (which should have been penalised) is the Titans second rowers holding the ball in the scrum, a la Rugby Union. Instead they get two points and take the lead. We have the potential to revisit 1976 again this year. Please explain NRL?
Can we please go back to the original concept of the differential penalty and have NO goal attempts from any scrum infringement. Foul language in a scrum gets you a shot at goal....spare me days
Replies
So if teams are going to play fast and loose with the scrum rules, let's have our blindside prop turn his head to the middle of the scrum and yell "s***f*** Ref" then have our front row stand up and point to the opposition bind sideprop and demand a penalty for foul language in the scrum. No difference between this and deliberately holding the ball in the scrum
Parra Tragic, I cannot find a place in the NRL rules where it prohibits holding the ball in the scrum. Can you point to that rule? I read the 2020 rules and a 2022 update.
I am less concerned about the scrum. The ref must call out or clear and obviously he didn't.
I am more concerned about the rank inconsistency. For instance, Moses gets penalized for tackling a player off the ball whose action was clearly an obstruction: attacker initiating contact with chest or outside shoulder. Titans canp out on our line to score. Or, Moses tackled in the air, very clearly, which should have been two points to Eels but nothing. Or, Titans clear forward pass off kickoff return. Nothing.
I always try to avoid 1Eyed bias but I just thought that was some shoddy officiating.
I don't have time for a deep dive into the rules today Daz (still rebuilding up to Steve Austin capabilities) but as you know, with all legislation/rules, there is the Act/Rules followed by Regulations then followed by Notes and Interpretations and sometimes a seperate set of General Orders. I have tried to find all these once before and it is near impossible to find all of these in relation to NRL Rules.
Voss said during commentary at the time (listen on the replay) "you can't hold the ball in the scrum" and I know from memory this law/reg was introduced. You could also argue that the act of holding the ball in the scrum means that you have formed a Flying Wedge which is illegal (ahh...The Flying Wedge - insert tearful emoji here from 1976). You could also argue that holding the ball in creates an immediate obstruction for the defending team
Agree with all your points above.
Daz I just watched the replay of the game and Shane Flanagan in commentary did mention you cannot trap the ball in the scrum so it must have only come in this year
I had Sports Ears in and the referee said Parramatta broke early from the scrum. Under the 2023 rule definition, it's a complete penalty allowing a shot for goal. It was to stop teams from simply breaking and happily conceding a penalty.
The ball can't be kept in the scrum in order to prevent sides from trapping defenders offside, but we also struck for the ball before it was in. That penalty was fine.
Daz, you are correct though on the penalty against Moses for tackling without the ball. That attacker was in front of the ball carrier and initiated contact. If anything that was an obstruction.
First breach was Titans trapping the ball in the scrum and penalty to Parramatta. Just like a double knock on. You dont rule on the second knock on.
Yeah I am happy to accept the scrum penalty, simply on grounds that it is refs call when out, so that's that.
But watching a clear Titans forward pass on their line overlooked, and a tackle on a kicker in the air (Moses) not called, and then a Titan obstructing an Eels player (Moses again!) and the Eels getting penalized for hitting a player off the ball ... well, frak me, I just gotta break my normal rule and say shit refereeing.
I thought the same thing PT and glad you raised it. No wonder the refs struggle given the various innuendos associated with each play.
Speaking of which I thought they would overturn the try that Sami scored in the first half. In recent weeks players have crossed the line with momentum but have been pulled back as the arm carrying the ball touched the ground before the line with a defender in contact. Last night Russell actual had both hands on Sami and yes momentum gets him there but his ball carrying arm hit the ground and then he makes a second effort to lift the ball over the line.
I had no problems with that being a try but again there seems to be slight variances re the double movement ruling
The double movement rule is rife for inconsistency because:
1) promoting the ball is illegal (arm carrying the ball contacts ground while defender in contact and attacker subsequently raises and lowers), and
2) if momentum carry's the attacker over the line then promoting the ball is fine.
BUT what if the only reason momentum gets you there is by lifting the arm, reducing the contact zone, the friction, which affects momentum?
The only way you can make 1 and 2 not bound to be in conflict is IF you assume the field is a frictionless zone in which momentum can be guaranteed. An assumption we cannot make.
Great point Daz! Interpretation of rules likes this and the scrum penalty could and have been inconsistent depending on who is referee/bunker. I see Titans fans are blowing up about Parra being offside on 2 occasions when they went for field goal. On both occasions the player in question pulled out and didn't come within 10m of Boyd. I have seen referees still give a penalty for this despite the defender stopping on their run.
My understanding is as long as they don't come within 10 metres it's not a penalty-consistent with rules on players who are offside from an attacking kick
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next