NRL Fantasy 2021 Part 78 - I can see Cleary now Mitch Rein has gone

Offside
A player is offside if he has one foot (either on or off the ground) in front of a teammate
who ‘last touches, is touched, held or kicked the ball’. Section 14 (1)
In relation to kick, an active offside player shall not encroach within ten metres of the ball,
when there is an opponent waiting for the ball.

Active or Passive:
Active is:
An offside player who takes part in and/or influences the course of the game.
Passive is:
An offside player who does not influence the course of the game.

The interpretation of both the Brown and Haas situations is correct according to the rules. You can be offside and not active if you don't influence the course of the game.

Honeysett wrote:

There's been more penalties for inside the 10 on a kicker than there has for not. The ruling is you need to be passive. Brown wasn't passive as him being around meant I'Pap wasn't tackled

He doesn't impede any tacklers, he steps backward, to make sure that he doesn't get in the way

mattnz wrote:Offside
A player is offside if he has one foot (either on or off the ground) in front of a teammate
who ‘last touches, is touched, held or kicked the ball’. Section 14 (1)
In relation to kick, an active offside player shall not encroach within ten metres of the ball,
when there is an opponent waiting for the ball.

Active or Passive:
Active is:
An offside player who takes part in and/or influences the course of the game.
Passive is:
An offside player who does not influence the course of the game.

The interpretation of both the Brown and Haas situations is correct according to the rules. You can be offside and not active if you don't influence the course of the game.

I don’t know what to say if you don’t think Brown influenced the course of the game on that play

mattnz wrote:

They are consistently ruling that you can be offside if you don't tackle the player or touch the ball though, as in the Haas example which is exactly the same situation.

They're not ruling it consistently, they're ruling it inconsistently. That's the problem.

mattnz wrote:
He doesn't impede any tacklers, he steps backward, to make sure that he doesn't get in the way

He was literally between Hodgson and Papalii

mattnz wrote:
He doesn't impede any tacklers, he steps backward, to make sure that he doesn't get in the way

Pick ya battles better I reckon. This is one that wont be won easily.

Snatchpato wrote:
He was literally between Hodgson and Papalii

Yes and steps back to ensure he isnt impeding Hodgson as he comes forward.

Fog or Moses?

mattnz wrote:Offside
A player is offside if he has one foot (either on or off the ground) in front of a teammate
who ‘last touches, is touched, held or kicked the ball’. Section 14 (1)
In relation to kick, an active offside player shall not encroach within ten metres of the ball,
when there is an opponent waiting for the ball.

Active or Passive:
Active is:
An offside player who takes part in and/or influences the course of the game.
Passive is:
An offside player who does not influence the course of the game.

The interpretation of both the Brown and Haas situations is correct according to the rules. You can be offside and not active if you don't influence the course of the game.

I’d say chasing a bomb with in 10m of the ball and the kicker would be close enough to taking part in the game.

He wasn’t running after the ball to play tiddlywinks. Before you say, didn’t influence the play, take note of the and/or with specific focus on the or.

Fortitude wrote:

I’d say chasing a bomb with in 10m of the ball and the kicker would be close enough to taking part in the game.

He wasn’t running after the ball to play tiddlywinks. Before you say, didn’t influence the play, take note of the and/or with specific focus on the or.

All of the above also apply to Haas, which was ruled exactly the same.

mattnz wrote:
All of the above also apply to Haas, which was ruled exactly the same.

You’re saying with such certainty that the Haas call was correct, And this one is incorrect? Why not the other way round?

Mulvy wrote:Fog or Moses?

Thoughts on my team?

Offside
Offside offside offside
Offside offside
Offside offside
… …

Fortitude wrote:

Thoughts on my team?

Offside
Offside offside offside
Offside offside
Offside offside
… …

I'll wait until you bump it.

Mulvy wrote:

I'll wait until you bump it.

What it deserves, I got lazy on the joke

Fortitude wrote:

You’re saying with such certainty that the Haas call was correct, And this one is incorrect? Why not the other way round?

No my original argument which everyone went against, was that if they are consistent, Brown was also a try, just like Haas was. The 2 situations are the same and had the same outcome. The way that they are interpreting the rules is pretty clear, and demonstrated consistently by the video ref.

In the Haas scenario there is no question that he is a long way in front of the kicker and well within 10 meters of the defender catching the ball, so it isnt like it is a marginal call, it is how they are now interpreting the rules.

Aw hell yeah, just dropped by on a whim and found out im lucky enough the watch the latest saga of Matt “The Iceman” NZ fight half the fucking forum and still somehow come out as the clear winner of the debate despite being almost certainly wrong. Usually i just watch the replays, so its good to catch it live for once.

Mulvy wrote:Fog or Moses?

To troll on social media using a fake account to learn them for ruining Fantasy this weekend?

If so, I've seen early reports of some idiot hiding behind the moniker 'Stew' blindsiding Moses with a rather vociferous Haiku.

Pookus McFly wrote:Aw hell yeah, just dropped by on a whim and found out im lucky enough the watch the latest saga of Matt “The Iceman” NZ fight half the fucking forum and still somehow come out as the clear winner of the debate despite being almost certainly wrong. Usually i just watch the replays, so its good to catch it live for once.

I'm surprised booze wasn't around.

Pookus McFly wrote:Aw hell yeah, just dropped by on a whim and found out im lucky enough the watch the latest saga of Matt “The Iceman” NZ fight half the fucking forum and still somehow come out as the clear winner of the debate despite being almost certainly wrong. Usually i just watch the replays, so its good to catch it live for once.

Kudos to MattNZ though, as Honeysett alluded to, bloke has the courage of his convictions and quite often offers a reasonably palatable alternative stance.

Just not in this instance.