St George just been penalised for it in the NRL semi

Last night Powell got awarded a penalty for the same thing.

NRL have got something right

The st george one was never a penalty

I agree, it's poor form. I think Gidley did the same for us (Wire) and it didn't sit well with me particularly when it's easier to avoid playing it.

Quite embarrassing really

About 10 mins before that Wire milked a penalty from Powell at the play of the ball so the ref made 2 * wrongs = right

Kind of pales when you have Toronto players biting ears...

I don't think that this is the quite the same thing and I 'm not opening up the debate on arm trapping, throwing yourself to the ground at the PTB as think these are all poor form, but, almost turning back to throw the ball at someone who's easily avoided is the cheapest of cheap play

they all accomplish the same thing, last nights decisions were correct because there was intention to slow down the play of the ball. I think Greg in his commentary on this mornings match said it should have been play on but the dummy half was intentionally throwing the ball to the first receiver and he was in the way so it was a penalty, accident or not. There are also accidental offsides which are harshly penalised. Weird decisions are also made when the ball hits the ref. But none of these were as bad as the examples from earlier in the season - such as the throwing of the ball at a player lying on the ground, wish I also remember being a forward pass.

The onus should be on the defending team's players to get back onside. If you're not offside then the ball won't be thrown at you and a penalty won't be awarded against you. Too many players are getting away with being offside at the ptb and cutting down the options for the attacking team.

I agree with you that players are sometimes deliberatejt standing not square at the play the ball or not getting back inside quick enough but I think it’s most annoying when a defender is at the back of the play the ball trying to get out of the way and the acting half deliberately passes the ball into him. For me it should be play on if the pass is going backwards in the same way it’s play on if an attack deliberately runs into an offside but non-participating defender.

It doesn’t sit well with me however, the defender is in an offside position, as he is in a position where the dummy half can throw the ball at him then he is interfering with play therefore it is a penalty but one the ref won’t give unless the ball is thrown at him. The defender who is offside needs to put themselves in a position where they are not interfering with play.

If you read the laws (see below) the player we are talking about is not 'offside' but 'out of play'.

Again, reading the law, the ref has to decide whether or not the player was INTENTIONALLY interfering with play which determines whether it's a penalty or scrum if he gets in the way. So, not always an easy judgement call for the ref.

"Penalise intentional interference 10.(g) If the ball is played quickly, all players will not necessarily have time to retire the prescribed distance.
They should be penalised only if they intentionally interfere with play – either actively or passively.
Accidental interference If the interference with play is accidental, a scrum should be formed. Interference should not be considered accidental when the player concerned has had opportunity to remove himself from the area in which play is taking place."

A player deliberately throwing the ball at or running into an accidently 'out of play' opponent could I suppose be penalised for 'misconduct' which includes "(i) behaves in any way contrary to the true spirit of the game."

From the matches I've seen this year in both hemispheres I've seen the refs award a penalty for the 1st incident and then they are "obliged" to award a retaliatory penalty to even things out. Rugby doesn't really have scope to "play on" like, say football, probably because a disadvantage is created out of an error.

While I accept that an offside player lying on the floor, perhaps injured, but who does not interfere with the running lines of the attacking team or get in the way of a pass should not have the ball thrown at him any player being slow to get back on side deserves all they get. If the Wire player had been quicker/fitter the incident with Powell wouldn't have happened. A big part of the game is being fit enough to get back on side and take up a position in your teams defensive line.

When Mciloram played for Wigan he did this every game, if a defending player was behind him getting up he’d deliberately throw it at him to the extent that he’d do a 180 to try and find someone to throw it against and always got away with it but that’s the Wigan culture

can you prove this?

Should amend the laws so that any player caught wrong side must drop to the floor. Too often they distract or impede the passer.

Yes he use to do it quite a lot in our derby games especially when the opposition player was down injured, he did it against Wellens (hip injury) Wilkins (head injury) Roby (Rib Injury).

Ah, you're describing Sean o'loughlin blocking the dummy half whenever the opposition need a drop goal, scenario.

I thought the penalty against wire was a joke, Johnson was up and halfway back to the line, powell had to let it after him to throw it at him,it was so obvious and calculated. Though arguably it was in the same grey area as the not square penalties, some refs give them, and give them to certain players, others never give them.

As much as I didn't like it, & it sums up Wigan in one moment, I thought it was intelligent by Powell & naive by Johnson.

It's a cheap and cynical play - but so long as the rules allow it, one can't fault a DH for taking the opportunity.

As has been said - if the defenders get out of the way, the opportunity no longer exists.

He did it this year, when we played at Catalans. Did it in last 60 seconds, milked the penalty which gave them the win. Small margins make all the difference at the end of a season you know.

It’s not as simple as that, how many times have we seen a tackler trapped under the ruck and the opposition gets up and steps over the bloke and plays the ball into his body. And to make it worse sometimes the tackler tries to roll to one side but the acting half plays to that side and passes the ball 6” off the ground.

The ruck and ptb is too heavily weighted to the attacking team, yes teams slow stuff down but as a ball carrier you can trap arms and legs, struggle on top off on below of, throw yourself forward play the ball into a tackle on the floor, move off the mark and even play on without a penalty nowadays,they just send you back.

You literally have to chin someone when in possession to get penalised

That would constitute moving off the mark - and if it were properly penalised on every occasion, it would also negate the situation that the OP was highlighting.

I'm not naïve enough to think it's entirely straightforward in every case; and there should be some allowance for a player being technically in the way, but making an obvious effort to not be - am I right that in the NRL, in those cases, the DH is penalised for deliberately bringing the defender back into play by throwing the ball at him?

The fundamental problem with tackle and ptb infringements is the wild west that the ruck has become; if that were sorted out, a lot of the corollary issues would disappear - but that ship has well and truly sailed, with no real attempt by the governing body to intervene.

Its no different to releasing a ball in a tackle and looking at the ref in the eye and saying "it was stolen sir", like the penalty against SOL in the good Friday derby which was the margin that decided that match