The 'downtown' rule

[Brissie Kid]

Wabbits got pinged out of the blue last night under the 'downtown' rule.

My vague recollection is this rule came in during the mid 1980s as players on the last tackle were already a few metres up field past the play the ball, before the play the ball had taken place. What Souths did last night was ok under the original downtown rule.

The rules have always allowed offside players, but added that they can't get involved in play until the opposition has moved the ball 10m, which Penrith did last night.

As is the way, the NRL has taken this rule and extended it into something else. The current downtown rule says:

Downtown Chasers
A player is considered ‘downtown’ when: A player who is in front of the kicker in general play who intentionally advances beyond the point of the previous play the ball before the ball has gone past him. https://www.nrl.com/siteassets/operations/documentation/nrl_laws_interpretations_2020.pdf

Former Manly player Luke Phillips explains the current NRL rule and last night here (why does Luke's twitter bio only mention the Roosters?)

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1428852508949061636

 

[cc eagle]

Wabbits got pinged out of the blue last night under the 'downtown' rule.

My vague recollection is this rule came in during the mid 1980s as players on the last tackle were already a few metres up field past the play the ball, before the play the ball had taken place. What Souths did last night was ok under the original downtown rule.

The rules have always allowed offside players, but added that they can't get involved in play until the opposition has moved the ball 10m, which Penrith did last night.

As is the way, the NRL has taken this rule and extended it into something else. The current downtown rule says:

Downtown Chasers
A player is considered ‘downtown’ when: A player who is in front of the kicker in general play who intentionally advances beyond the point of the previous play the ball before the ball has gone past him. https://www.nrl.com/siteassets/operations/documentation/nrl_laws_interpretations_2020.pdf

Former Manly player Luke Phillips explains the current NRL rule and last night here (why does Luke's twitter bio only mention the Roosters?)

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1428852508949061636

Let's see if we get anymore penalties for it this weekend, now we've woke up the other bunker officials to it

 

[maxta]

I don't mind any rules being upheld and the refs blowing the whistles, but it's the inconsistency that gets me...this down town has happened the last 250 games in 2021 and then decide to pull out the rulebook for this game ??
I have seen similar tries to big Guoc given all year - Marty "through" the line and the gate Guoc runs through is 2 outside this lead runner also, which made it more ridiculous.
The inconsistencies in the ruck with these 6 again calls is very confusing at times and also allows an apparent favouritism to 1 side, especially the team trailing on the scoreboard.
Love the game, but the inconsistencies by officials gets very frustrating at times.

 

[40 years an eagle]

Yes, my understanding of the rule referred to a player being in front of the play-the-ball and not retiring. That is not what happened last night.

 

[Ron E. Gibbs]

My wife has a very strict interpretation of the downtown rule and insists on enforcing it, even when I'd rather give it a miss.

 

[The better Robbo]

Yes, my understanding of the rule referred to a player being in front of the play-the-ball and not retiring. That is not what happened last night.

I thought you had to be behind the play the ball at the time the kicker kicks? That would make sense in this situation.

 

[40 years an eagle]

I thought you had to be behind the play the ball at the time the kicker kicks? That would make sense in this situation.

That is the interpretation the ref gave,. It is only possible to GUESS, on the run, where the play-the-ball took place after play has continued and that cannot be accurate enough to enforce a rule on surely.
If a player is not behind where the play-the-ball took place he is out of that play unless he retires behind where the play-the-ball took place. That was always MY interpretation and how I have always seen it administered.

 

[cc eagle]

That is the interpretation the ref gave,. It is only possible to GUESS, on the run, where the play-the-ball took place after play has continued and that cannot be accurate enough to enforce a rule on surely.
If a player is not behind where the play-the-ball took place he is out of that play unless he retires behind where the play-the-ball took place. That was always MY interpretation and how I have always seen it administered.

I'm sure Warren Smith said "It wouldn't have mattered if the Penrith player ran 100mts, Nichols was always offside"

 

[40 years an eagle]

I'm sure Warren Smith said "It wouldn't have mattered if the Penrith player ran 100mts, Nichols was always offside"

Yes he did... after the ref explained it on the coverage. He only added to it and that doesn't mean he knew the rule was being applied correctly or incorrectly. Maybe the ref call was correct according to the rule...but it is not how I have always seen it applied.

 

[cc eagle]

Yes he did... after the ref explained it on the coverage. He only added to it and that doesn't mean he knew the rule was being applied correctly or incorrectly. Maybe the ref call was correct according to the rule...but it is not how I have always seen it applied.

True, so let's keep an eye on it for the rest of games this weekend, players are often in front of the kicker, but are they in front of the ruck !!

 

[The better Robbo]

That is the interpretation the ref gave,. It is only possible to GUESS, on the run, where the play-the-ball took place after play has continued and that cannot be accurate enough to enforce a rule on surely.
If a player is not behind where the play-the-ball took place he is out of that play unless he retires behind where the play-the-ball took place. That was always MY interpretation and how I have always seen it administered.

I think there is 2 different rules. There is the rule if you are in front of the play the ball (when it is played) you have to retire behind that point to be "in play"
Then there is the downtown rule which is for when kicking. A kick chaser can not be ahead of where the play the ball occurred at the point the ball is kicked... even if he was originally "in play" behind the play the ball.

 

[40 years an eagle]

I think there is 2 different rules. There is the rule if you are in front of the play the ball (when it is played) you have to retire behind that point to be "in play"
Then there is the downtown rule which is for when kicking. A kick chaser can not be ahead of where the play the ball occurred at the point the ball is kicked... even if he was originally "in play" behind the play the ball.

Yes, 2 separate rules would explain it...but I can't recall ever seeing the second one enforced before.

 

[The Who]

The most relevant point is: why did the Bunker interfere for such a random rule?
If allowed to continue it gives the Bunker even greater control of match outcomes which, of course, raises the spectre of gambling involvement in the sport.
If a Bunker official is corrupt then games can be manipulated. We are naive to think it doesn't happen.

 

[The better Robbo]

Yes, 2 separate rules would explain it...but I can't recall ever seeing the second one enforced before.

Yeah it probably happens every game but never called. I can recall seeing It only a few times before so is a very rare ruling and would usually require a video ref or an extremely switched on touching to pick it up.

 

[Uk eagle]

Was this the reason we used to have full backs kicking to each other (I think in the 80's)? It was like a game of ping pong sometimes

 

[EOL now nesting on the GC]

Was this the reason we used to have full backs kicking to each other (I think in the 80's)? It was like a game of ping pong sometimes

thats what we need to see. a good old fullback kicking duel. they were great......

 

[cc eagle]

I was keeping an eye on it yesterday, thought I saw only one downtown player being Klemmer, he was in front of the ruck as he run through and didn't receive the ball, he then didn't actually chase the kick just strolled down to get in the defensive line, so didn't get involved in the next play.

 

[The better Robbo]

I was keeping an eye on it yesterday, thought I saw only one downtown player being Klemmer, he was in front of the ruck as he run through and didn't receive the ball, he then didn't actually chase the kick just strolled down to get in the defensive line, so didn't get involved in the next play.

I seen a few where the player actually made a tackle. Is this allowed if the fullback runs 10 metres? If not, then this rule seems like its only enforced if there is an error by the fullback and you then get involved in an attacking play. Surely you are not supposed to be involved in any way!

 

[wombatgc]

The most relevant point is: why did the Bunker interfere for such a random rule?
If allowed to continue it gives the Bunker even greater control of match outcomes which, of course, raises the spectre of gambling involvement in the sport.
If a Bunker official is corrupt then games can be manipulated. We are naive to think it doesn't happen.

Klein……say no more.

 

[cc eagle]

I seen a few where the player actually made a tackle. Is this allowed if the fullback runs 10 metres? If not, then this rule seems like its only enforced if there is an error by the fullback and you then get involved in an attacking play. Surely you are not supposed to be involved in any way!

You have to be in front of the last play the ball to be downtown, so I'm not sure at what stage you can get involved in the play, maybe your offside no matter what happens