In an NRL.com article regarding the "ball-boy" incident, the following statement was made:"But the play was called back because, under the new quick tap ruling, play can only continue if the ball boy places the ball on the sideline – not passes it to a player."But in-fact, the official 40/20 rule states that “When a kick in general play and from inside a team’s 40 metre zone, finds touch (other than on the full) in the opposition’s 20 metre zone, the resulting tap kick restart will be awarded to the kicking team 20 metres in from touch opposite where the ball crossed the touch line, but no closer than 10 metres from the goal line.”"It is the only mention of 40/20 kicks in the Rugby League Laws of the Game."There is no rule regarding the ball-boy, specifically placing the ball on the line. Play only resumes after the tap restart is taken 20m in from touch.What happens before that - especially regarding a 10-12 year old ball-boy - should not be taken into account as play has not been resumed yet, and there is no chance that a young kid can sprint to the spot faster than the likes of Radradra or Koribete. Whether the ball is thrown from the "grandstand" (as Brad said) or whether it is simply given to the winger who passes it 20 meters infield for play to resume - shouldn't matter.In my opinion, the referees fell under pressure knowing it was a massive play from Sandow kicking the 40/20, and had they allowed the try to be scored straight after, they would cop a lot of hate from Bulldogs supporters and Des Hasler. I think he felt that Parramatta already had an advantage, so it's a win-win situation because we still had a full set in the oppositions 20.But whatever the reason, the ball boy should not be held accountable. Some here are saying that the ball boy is giving Eels an advantage by passing the ball to Toutai. I'm sorry, but if an innocent 10-12 year old ball boy can get to the mark faster than Bulldogs players, then it's no longer a matter of Eels having the advantage. As we saw, there were only 2/3 Bulldogs players Infront of us.Regardless. NRL are trying to tell us that there is a rule with the 40/20 stating that the ball boy must place it on the line. It's not the case. Play only resumes when the ball is talked 20m in from touch.What if one day, a stubborn ball-boy decided not to put the ball on the touch line. Do we cancell the whole NRL game because of this? Or do we just get someone to throw the winger the ball, so he can give it to the player on mark to resume play?The ball-boy is there to incorporate the young kids of the game, to promote Rugby League at their age. To appeal to the nation that Rugby League is a game for all ages. They are given the simplest of tasks - to place the ball on the touch like for the players to collect. It's every kids young dream - to be so close to the action. We use these kids to promote our game.They are not trained and experienced officials. They are not selected based on their resumes for who has the most experience for placing balls on a line. It's pathetic. If they're there to promote our game to these younger kids, to our future generations, then they should not be blasted by an NRL official blamining him for the Eels' loss.Rant over.
Views: 84
You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!
I just got another copy of the laws of the game from the nrl and penciled in on the 40-20 law was "oh ye we forgot to mention the ball boy must place the ball on the ground". All good now no controversy here.
I've seen many times over the years where ball boys for the home side are reluctant & even refuse to hand over a ball to the away side. They are kids & should never have any responsibility. All teams should be able to take whatever action necessary to get a ball to the tap position.
Ye look at soccer for instance. The only responsibility the ball boy has is to retrieve and get the ball back to the players no matter what technique he uses to get it done. Only the nrl can come up with such a irrelevant nothing rule. The nrl have added so many rules to the game that they now extend to the ball boys. Next set of rules will extend to the crowed.
When the NRL issues regulations, whether or not it is part of the official rule book, I would treat them as if they are.
As is the case in our legal system, regulations are issued in addition to and that compliment the legislation.
eg, legislation says speeding is illegal, but doesn't say I'll cop a fine of a specific amount if I'm caught.
Regulations and other things are issued which add to the legislation.
FME > IH8Manly & IEspeciallyH8QldAugust 16, 2014 at 1:42pm
Government legislation covers a huge area of law and countless number of legislation exists so its understandable that not everything is added in writing. The nrl only have legislation for rugby league so surly it's not to much to ask to have everything in writing. Bet u they r now regretting not putting the ball boy rule in writing. The nrl create their own problems but don't want to face the criticism they cop when it blows up in their faces. People can take the govt to court if they have been done wrong by and I feel the nrl is headed in that direction. How about parra challenge the rule in court and sue for loss of income from missing the finals. Is this where we want the game headed because that's exactly the direction the nrl is pushing the game.
Brad Arthur on Triple M "So with this rule. Next week against Manly, I can instruct my ball boys to throw the ball to the Manly players so they can't take a quick tap. It's ridiculous."
Hope our ball boys do it too, refuse to give Manly a quick tap by never placing the ball on the line. I would love to see the NRLs reply to that situation. Tooveys reaction would be priceless.
So if you received the NRL Handbook which contained the regulation in question, do you think it is acceptable to disregard it and play by your own rules without fear of being penalised?
A bit presumptuous, isn't it?!!!
Maybe teams have gotten away with it in the past. But why would you open the door to being pulled up on a technicality that is so simple to execute properly?
FFS, It cost us in the past, and they still haven't learned. That's the coach's responsibility, and as much as I like and support BA, this could have and should have all been avoided at Parra's end.
FME > IH8Manly & IEspeciallyH8QldAugust 16, 2014 at 2:49pm
Ok so let all teams go with BA suggestion and tell their own ball boys to throw the ball to the opposition so they get penalised every time they go for a quick tap. By enforcing that GUIDELINE as strictly as they did last night then it opens up this kind of tactic. Nothing in the rule book about instructing ball boys is there??
"Hearing that as well. I wouldn't be happy if I was Thomas Jenkins... either way MON and Ryles need to have their pulse on this. We are in desperate need of better centres. "
"There are also statements saying the bulldogs won't stand in his way. This is the story every single time. He has never spoken to anyone, it's all bullshit, he knows nothing. While he is packing his locker and signing the release forms during his…"
Replies
I've seen many times over the years where ball boys for the home side are reluctant & even refuse to hand over a ball to the away side. They are kids & should never have any responsibility. All teams should be able to take whatever action necessary to get a ball to the tap position.
When the NRL issues regulations, whether or not it is part of the official rule book, I would treat them as if they are.
As is the case in our legal system, regulations are issued in addition to and that compliment the legislation.
eg, legislation says speeding is illegal, but doesn't say I'll cop a fine of a specific amount if I'm caught.
Regulations and other things are issued which add to the legislation.
Brad Arthur on Triple M "So with this rule. Next week against Manly, I can instruct my ball boys to throw the ball to the Manly players so they can't take a quick tap. It's ridiculous."
Hope our ball boys do it too, refuse to give Manly a quick tap by never placing the ball on the line. I would love to see the NRLs reply to that situation. Tooveys reaction would be priceless.
So if you received the NRL Handbook which contained the regulation in question, do you think it is acceptable to disregard it and play by your own rules without fear of being penalised?
A bit presumptuous, isn't it?!!!
Maybe teams have gotten away with it in the past. But why would you open the door to being pulled up on a technicality that is so simple to execute properly?
FFS, It cost us in the past, and they still haven't learned. That's the coach's responsibility, and as much as I like and support BA, this could have and should have all been avoided at Parra's end.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next