New rule? Leaping for bomb

[silvertail]

There was a penalty the other day for a player jumping in the air for a bomb, not contesting or having eyes for the ball and not touching the opposing player who was leaping for the ball.

Was I imaging things? I’m sure he didn’t touch him. So penalties are give these days for scaring players they may contest, but they don’t I’d call that good play and no way deserving a penalty. .

 

[JenEagle]

It’s called the disruptor. Dead serious

 

[The Who]

It’s called the disruptor. Dead serious

Yeah. And you're not allowed to call the receiver nasty names to put them off catching the ball . . . unless you keep your eyes on the ball in flight.

 

[Rafferty]

Pretty funny listening to Drinkwater tonight when they asked him about it, apparently, directive was sent out to the clubs explaining it, boys asked him to explain, played like he had no clue, but it’s definitely a thing! if your not 100% contesting the ball and get involved, your a disrupter, fair dinkum our game is going to sh1t.

 

[rj90]

This disruptor rule is ridiculous.

There were countless times players chased, had eyes only for the ball, jumped and took possession from the fullback, only the be called a disruptor? It's a fuking stupid rule that has not much grey area when adjudicating.

Stop. Messing. With. The. Game.

 

[Frogz]

Cant leap for a bomb, cant stop someone attempting a field goal... Stupid drop out rule change... They are just stupid rules change that are ruining the game

 

[cc eagle]

This disruptor rule is ridiculous.

There were countless times players chased, had eyes only for the ball, jumped and took possession from the fullback, only the be called a disruptor? It's a fuking stupid rule that has not much grey area when adjudicating.

Stop. Messing. With. The. Game.

If the chaser catches the ball he cant be a "Disruptor", I'm not sure which ones you're referring to.

 

[Medowie Eagle]

I am going to be the odd man out on this one.

There is another thread about simulation where players feign injury which I am sure everyone agrees with, yet we seem to be happy with players pretending to go for a bomb for the only real reason of putting the opposition off.
I have no problem with a penalty being given where there is no intent to take the high ball. It's hard enough to take a bomb from Cleary or Burton without someone trying this on.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

I’m sure my new rule will catch on

A kicker indicates to his opposition that he’s going to attempt a field goal.

The opposition players , then form a big circle , holding hands , with the captain standing in the middle leading the Kumbaya sing along.

They then look to the sky and pray that the kicker misses.

The kicker then takes his kick and once the ball lands the defending team is able to break away from the circle & reform the defensive line.

Absolutely guaranteed to never injure the kicker.

Everyone’s a winner , especially the Mormon boys who will get right into the singing.

I think we should petition the NRL to bring this in immediately, may as well, it’s almost in now.

 

[rj90]

If the chaser catches the ball he cant be a "Disruptor", I'm not sure which ones you're referring to.

I'm 90% sure it was in the Raiders v Titans game last night.
I'll track it down. It was absurd.

 

[HK_Eagle]

I am going to be the odd man out on this one.

There is another thread about simulation where players feign injury which I am sure everyone agrees with, yet we seem to be happy with players pretending to go for a bomb for the only real reason of putting the opposition off.
I have no problem with a penalty being given where there is no intent to take the high ball. It's hard enough to take a bomb from Cleary or Burton without someone trying this on.

And therein is the issue. How exactly do you rule on intent? That’s hard enough in our criminal justice system, requiring huge time and money resources, and highly qualified professionals… and you want a bunch of a$$clowns in the bunker determining that?

Assuming, we could somehow manage to determine what the inner workings of a player’s mind was, I still think it’s fair game to employ mind games and attempt to throw opposition players off…. AS LONG AS THE DEFENSIVE PLAYER DOES NOT PHYSICALLY TOUCH THE DEFENDER.

 

[rj90]

WATCH: 'F--k off!' 'Disruptor' penalty inconsistency leaves Demetriou, Brandy perplexed

The Souths coach appeared to be arguing that the same call made in the first half was not paid in the second.

www.theroar.com.au

 

[rj90]

Also from The Roar:

Word of the week: ‘Disruptor’​

This week’s referee rage came from the little-known and even less understood ‘kick disruptors’ rule.

It seemed like more than a few players were pinged as disrupting this week. The subjective nature of the call is driving people spare, there’s no ‘standard’ to follow and there’s going to be many different interpretations from contest to contest.

So let’s educate ourselves abut the rule. The NRL highlighted it in their pre-season briefings.

“If in the opinion of the referee or bunker, a player feigns (pretends) to compete for the ball and interferes with the catcher, this may be considered obstruction and penalised.”

Contrary to what you’ll hear from the commentary box, Graham Annesley says if a player has eyes on the ball it doesn’t matter – it’s up to the referee or bunker to make the call whether the defender made a ‘genuine attempt’ to compete for the ball, or if it was to disrupt the receiver.

 

[rj90]

Commentators unimpressed that Api Koroisau was penalised for making a 'fair' kick challenge

The referee called him a disrupter and not going for the ball but to put the player off - but Andrew Voss says mid-air…

www.theroar.com.au

And another. Api always has eyes for the ball, Sloan knocks it on, Api penalised.
Outrageous rule.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

I get the idea behind this rule but the trouble is ( as with obstruction ) the NRL wants everything black or white , with zero gray area.

If you look at the AoA tackle there’s zero intent to “ disrupt “ other than hands in the air , rushing the player to try and stop the field goal.

It’s been happening in league for decades & in Rugby for over 100 years , and suddenly, it’s a penalty.

I do get some players attack a player who’s trying to catch a ball to push them away & have the ball bounce making it a lottery.

Fair enough

But how in gods name ( and I’m not even
Religious ) is a player trying to contest the ball , or in Josh A’s case trying to stop the field goal deemed a disruptor??

That’s the trouble with the NRL, no gray it’s just black or white

 

[globaleagle]

If you attempt, but miss, a tackle...you're now a 'disruptor' for stopping the attacking player from running forward!

 

[HK_Eagle]

New rule. Both teams run in the same direction to avoid uneccessary contact. Points for the win will be determined by Tod Greenberg’s daughter

 

[TokyoEagle]

I felt Barnett getting pinged as a disruptor when Tommy knocked on was a harsh call. To me it looked like he went in to challenge but pulled out at the last minute as he felt he wasn't in the best position. From a safety standpoint, isn't this exactly what they are asking players to do?

 

[Tragic Eagle]

The whole purpose of putting pressure on the catcher is to disrupt his concentration. Stupid stupid rule.

 

[Disco]

I thi k the rule is good, the current enforcement (like most atm) not so good.