The ref ruled it a 20m restart cause de silva kicked it dead after he knocks on. That was the second infringment though should it not just be a knock on?
Views: 799
You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!
I too think the 7 tackle set awarded after TDS knocked on and kicked the ball over the dead ball line was the correct call. Why? Maybe we are asking the wrong question if we ask whether the ref was deciding TDS's motivation ("was he intending to kick or kicked in frustration"?)
Instead, isn't it the "accidental breach" law? Attacking team accidentally breaches, like knocking on, and so possession changes hands. The defending team gaining possession in that instance is on zero tackle not tackle one. But I guess TDS kicking it out forced that restart to be on the 20m line and zero tackle as per the accidental breach law. Ryles would be no doubt noting to TDS to keep his cool and be prepared to defend, forcing that zero tackle to be as far "downfield" as TDS can make it.
Many might recall that Slater try where he dropped and kicked? But I imagine ref discretion could ALSO see TDS was kicking in frustration, making the accidental breach law an easy one to opt for under the circumstance?
"Exactly, people complain but what someone who sees what we have now as bad will see something new as good the other will see it go from good to bad.
Let's be fair would Penrith fans see their draw as bad? They would have seen the Melbourne,…"
Replies
No its the correct call.
If a player kicks it dead after the error it is moved to a restart.
This is a correct call it was brought in a few years ago to stop slowing of the play.
I too think the 7 tackle set awarded after TDS knocked on and kicked the ball over the dead ball line was the correct call. Why? Maybe we are asking the wrong question if we ask whether the ref was deciding TDS's motivation ("was he intending to kick or kicked in frustration"?)
Instead, isn't it the "accidental breach" law? Attacking team accidentally breaches, like knocking on, and so possession changes hands. The defending team gaining possession in that instance is on zero tackle not tackle one. But I guess TDS kicking it out forced that restart to be on the 20m line and zero tackle as per the accidental breach law. Ryles would be no doubt noting to TDS to keep his cool and be prepared to defend, forcing that zero tackle to be as far "downfield" as TDS can make it.
Many might recall that Slater try where he dropped and kicked? But I imagine ref discretion could ALSO see TDS was kicking in frustration, making the accidental breach law an easy one to opt for under the circumstance?