The Disruptor Rule

HaroldBishop

Megalodon
Joined
Mar 8, 2012
Messages
66,486
Reaction score
22,721
Location
Sydney
I have no idea why we need to make a simple game complicated. Honestly I have zero idea how they're going to rule with bomb challenges, absolute lottery

That disallowed try by Easts, wow. Just wow. How the **** is that not a try.

We were told attackers had to challenge with 2 hands. So what's happened with that?

Way to completely **** an area of the game that was perfectly fine
 
I have no idea why we need to make a simple game complicated. Honestly I have zero idea how they're going to rule with bomb challenges, absolute lottery

That disallowed try by Easts, wow. Just wow. How the **** is that not a try.

We were told attackers had to challenge with 2 hands. So what's happened with that?

Way to completely **** an area of the game that was perfectly fine
It’s what we do.. look for perfection in an imperfect game .. it just gives you the shits
 
Everything PVL has done at the micro level of the game has been garbage.

He deserves credit for the big picture stuff, but not enough to deal with how **** this product has become under him.
Can't disagree with any if that.
 
I have no idea why we need to make a simple game complicated. Honestly I have zero idea how they're going to rule with bomb challenges, absolute lottery

That disallowed try by Easts, wow. Just wow. How the **** is that not a try.

We were told attackers had to challenge with 2 hands. So what's happened with that?

Way to completely **** an area of the game that was perfectly fine

I know Fox likes to manufacture controversy, but Alexander's comments asking to be explained what the rule exactly entails were spot on.
 
Wow Graham getting in the front foot for once


We got them wrong: NRL’s admission on contentious ‘disruptor’ incidents
Dan Walsh — April 12, 2026
The NRL has conceded Roosters star Rob Toia was incorrectly denied a critical try as the governing body clarified that there is no blanket ban on competing with only one hand in aerial contests.
The Bunker’s no-try call against Toia in Saturday’s win over Cronulla stunned most observers, with opposing coaches Trent Robinson and Craig Fitzgibbon declaring they no longer understood how disruptors and contact under the high ball was being adjudicated.
NRL head of elite football Graham Annesley told this masthead on Sunday that Toia should not have been denied a first-half four-pointer for “incidental” contact with Sharks winger Sam Stonestreet in the air.
A contentious penalty against Cowboys No.1 Scott Drinkwater against Brisbane was also deemed to have been incorrectly ruled on Friday night, but the NRL insists the disruptor rule remains valid to ensure fair contests in the air.
“The Toia decision and in the Drinkwater call on Friday night, we think that the judgment the Bunker applied was incorrect,” Annesley said.
“The important thing is that there will be contact in kick contests. The overriding factor in these matters is, was the contest a fair contest? Did both players have equal opportunity to try and win that contest?
“There are a number of indicators that we look for - are [kick chasers] arriving too early, are they pretending to compete for the ball? In these two incidents, the standard applied was far too high. We think they were genuine contests and should have been ruled as disruptors.
“The referees and Bunker officials have to apply their own judgements to each case and we’ll review all kick contests from the weekend and work with the referees coaching staff on the required standards.
“But there’s a legitimate reason for the rule and that’s to protect players [from] getting taken out unfairly without an opportunity to contest the ball.
“We just have to make sure that we apply the right standard in determining what is and what is not a fair contest.”
The NRL’s revised interpretations of disruptors in 2026 came out of the off-season coaches meeting in December where leading coaches endorsed several rule changes.
Feedback from the game’s leading mentors reiterated that players were being adeptly coached to baulk at contesting high balls and unfairly forcing errors from defending players.
Robinson said after the Roosters’ 34-22 win over Cronulla that he agreed with the increased policing of disruptors because last year “there was too much disturbing of fullbacks, there were people who weren’t competing. That’s [now] gone too far.”
Annesley also clarified a “public misconception” about whether players are required to use two hands in aerial contests given confusion around that indicator of a potential disruptor.
NRL communications to clubs on the eve of the season’s kick-off stated “genuinely contesting is deemed to mean arriving at the ball at the same time as the defender and with two arms in the air to catch or bat the ball back”.
“What we found though was players were flying through at high velocity doing nothing but swiping at the ball with one hand and in doing so cleaning up a catcher who is standing there waiting for the ball,” Annesley said.
“That is not a fair contest. But there is no blanket ban on a one-handed approach and knocking the ball back. The example there was little to no contact involved and it was a legitimate contest. As long as it’s a fair contest, that’s what we’re ruling on, and there will be interpretations of that.
“By and large, the match officials get these right. We will put our hand up when we think we’ve got decisions wrong like in these two incidents [the Toia and Drinkwater calls] but the rule remains valid. So we’re not changing our standard or approach, it’s about ensuring a fair contest for the ball.”
 
Wow Graham getting in the front foot for once


We got them wrong: NRL’s admission on contentious ‘disruptor’ incidents
Dan Walsh — April 12, 2026
The NRL has conceded Roosters star Rob Toia was incorrectly denied a critical try as the governing body clarified that there is no blanket ban on competing with only one hand in aerial contests.
The Bunker’s no-try call against Toia in Saturday’s win over Cronulla stunned most observers, with opposing coaches Trent Robinson and Craig Fitzgibbon declaring they no longer understood how disruptors and contact under the high ball was being adjudicated.
NRL head of elite football Graham Annesley told this masthead on Sunday that Toia should not have been denied a first-half four-pointer for “incidental” contact with Sharks winger Sam Stonestreet in the air.
A contentious penalty against Cowboys No.1 Scott Drinkwater against Brisbane was also deemed to have been incorrectly ruled on Friday night, but the NRL insists the disruptor rule remains valid to ensure fair contests in the air.
“The Toia decision and in the Drinkwater call on Friday night, we think that the judgment the Bunker applied was incorrect,” Annesley said.
“The important thing is that there will be contact in kick contests. The overriding factor in these matters is, was the contest a fair contest? Did both players have equal opportunity to try and win that contest?
“There are a number of indicators that we look for - are [kick chasers] arriving too early, are they pretending to compete for the ball? In these two incidents, the standard applied was far too high. We think they were genuine contests and should have been ruled as disruptors.
“The referees and Bunker officials have to apply their own judgements to each case and we’ll review all kick contests from the weekend and work with the referees coaching staff on the required standards.
“But there’s a legitimate reason for the rule and that’s to protect players [from] getting taken out unfairly without an opportunity to contest the ball.
“We just have to make sure that we apply the right standard in determining what is and what is not a fair contest.”
The NRL’s revised interpretations of disruptors in 2026 came out of the off-season coaches meeting in December where leading coaches endorsed several rule changes.
Feedback from the game’s leading mentors reiterated that players were being adeptly coached to baulk at contesting high balls and unfairly forcing errors from defending players.
Robinson said after the Roosters’ 34-22 win over Cronulla that he agreed with the increased policing of disruptors because last year “there was too much disturbing of fullbacks, there were people who weren’t competing. That’s [now] gone too far.”
Annesley also clarified a “public misconception” about whether players are required to use two hands in aerial contests given confusion around that indicator of a potential disruptor.
NRL communications to clubs on the eve of the season’s kick-off stated “genuinely contesting is deemed to mean arriving at the ball at the same time as the defender and with two arms in the air to catch or bat the ball back”.
“What we found though was players were flying through at high velocity doing nothing but swiping at the ball with one hand and in doing so cleaning up a catcher who is standing there waiting for the ball,” Annesley said.
“That is not a fair contest. But there is no blanket ban on a one-handed approach and knocking the ball back. The example there was little to no contact involved and it was a legitimate contest. As long as it’s a fair contest, that’s what we’re ruling on, and there will be interpretations of that.
“By and large, the match officials get these right. We will put our hand up when we think we’ve got decisions wrong like in these two incidents [the Toia and Drinkwater calls] but the rule remains valid. So we’re not changing our standard or approach, it’s about ensuring a fair contest for the ball.”
Yeah they are great at getting on the front foot when the teams won.

Also - they want to clear up public 'misconception' about using one arm when contesting....they are the ones that put it into writing days before the season started.
 
Yeah they are great at getting on the front foot when the teams won.

Also - they want to clear up public 'misconception' about using one arm when contesting....they are the ones that put it into writing days before the season started.

Another one of those rule twist that are forgotten 2 months into the season.

Fail to think things through, mishandle the whole issue, backtrack somewhat or outright drop the matter hoping no one will remember, find something else to mess with...
Sounds familiar.

The NRL should change their colors from green to orange.
 
Wow Graham getting in the front foot for once


We got them wrong: NRL’s admission on contentious ‘disruptor’ incidents
Dan Walsh — April 12, 2026
The NRL has conceded Roosters star Rob Toia was incorrectly denied a critical try as the governing body clarified that there is no blanket ban on competing with only one hand in aerial contests.
The Bunker’s no-try call against Toia in Saturday’s win over Cronulla stunned most observers, with opposing coaches Trent Robinson and Craig Fitzgibbon declaring they no longer understood how disruptors and contact under the high ball was being adjudicated.
NRL head of elite football Graham Annesley told this masthead on Sunday that Toia should not have been denied a first-half four-pointer for “incidental” contact with Sharks winger Sam Stonestreet in the air.
A contentious penalty against Cowboys No.1 Scott Drinkwater against Brisbane was also deemed to have been incorrectly ruled on Friday night, but the NRL insists the disruptor rule remains valid to ensure fair contests in the air.
“The Toia decision and in the Drinkwater call on Friday night, we think that the judgment the Bunker applied was incorrect,” Annesley said.
“The important thing is that there will be contact in kick contests. The overriding factor in these matters is, was the contest a fair contest? Did both players have equal opportunity to try and win that contest?
“There are a number of indicators that we look for - are [kick chasers] arriving too early, are they pretending to compete for the ball? In these two incidents, the standard applied was far too high. We think they were genuine contests and should have been ruled as disruptors.
“The referees and Bunker officials have to apply their own judgements to each case and we’ll review all kick contests from the weekend and work with the referees coaching staff on the required standards.
“But there’s a legitimate reason for the rule and that’s to protect players [from] getting taken out unfairly without an opportunity to contest the ball.
“We just have to make sure that we apply the right standard in determining what is and what is not a fair contest.”
The NRL’s revised interpretations of disruptors in 2026 came out of the off-season coaches meeting in December where leading coaches endorsed several rule changes.
Feedback from the game’s leading mentors reiterated that players were being adeptly coached to baulk at contesting high balls and unfairly forcing errors from defending players.
Robinson said after the Roosters’ 34-22 win over Cronulla that he agreed with the increased policing of disruptors because last year “there was too much disturbing of fullbacks, there were people who weren’t competing. That’s [now] gone too far.”
Annesley also clarified a “public misconception” about whether players are required to use two hands in aerial contests given confusion around that indicator of a potential disruptor.
NRL communications to clubs on the eve of the season’s kick-off stated “genuinely contesting is deemed to mean arriving at the ball at the same time as the defender and with two arms in the air to catch or bat the ball back”.
“What we found though was players were flying through at high velocity doing nothing but swiping at the ball with one hand and in doing so cleaning up a catcher who is standing there waiting for the ball,” Annesley said.
“That is not a fair contest. But there is no blanket ban on a one-handed approach and knocking the ball back. The example there was little to no contact involved and it was a legitimate contest. As long as it’s a fair contest, that’s what we’re ruling on, and there will be interpretations of that.
“By and large, the match officials get these right. We will put our hand up when we think we’ve got decisions wrong like in these two incidents [the Toia and Drinkwater calls] but the rule remains valid. So we’re not changing our standard or approach, it’s about ensuring a fair contest for the ball.”
Probably because Robinson and Roosters were dudded. They can’t be having that
 
The NRL should be working with the ref boss (and clubs) to get the standards and interpretations right BEFORE the season kicks off, not during the season as always seems to be the case

Do some mock up animations of players contesting the ball highlighting what is and isn't acceptable because the refs always become paranoid not to enforce a new rule but they take it to extremes and nit pick so bad in slow motion
 
Back
Top