Pearce Try....Obstruction?

ImageImageImage
User avatar
weststigers
Member
Member
Posts: 732
Joined: Sat 11 Jul, 2009 6:25 pm

Pearce Try....Obstruction?

Post by weststigers » Sun 26 Aug, 2012 9:37 pm

Just interested to hear how people on here saw the Pearce try where there was a hint of obstruction...It was pretty blatant in my opinion, what do you all think?

(Not that it would have changed much!)


aajlewis
Member
Member
Posts: 222
Joined: Sun 22 May, 2011 10:29 am

Post by aajlewis » Sun 26 Aug, 2012 9:47 pm

I think the try. I'm not sure by which rooster, that had a forward pass and a blatant obstruction which stopped two of our players and was given a try was worse. We deserved to lose that game , we didn't play well but the refereeing is ridiculous , especially after at least 10 looks at it


Posted using RoarFEED 2012

User avatar
GNR4LIFE
Member
Member
Posts: 21848
Joined: Mon 28 Feb, 2011 5:57 pm

Post by GNR4LIFE » Sun 26 Aug, 2012 9:52 pm

Does it matter? hardly a major talking point i wouldn't have thought

User avatar
weststigers
Member
Member
Posts: 732
Joined: Sat 11 Jul, 2009 6:25 pm

Post by weststigers » Sun 26 Aug, 2012 9:58 pm

Yep. Mini took out 2 Tigers and Pearce scored...horrendous.

@GNR4LIFE - No it doesn't matter in light of our game and I stated that in my OP. I do, however think it matters that the officials know the rules when they are refereeing matches; Tigers games or otherwise.

User avatar
innsaneink
Member
Member
Posts: 28472
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 9:49 pm
Location: ...ahead of you....

Post by innsaneink » Sun 26 Aug, 2012 10:15 pm

Yeh, Utai was obstructed, that said....players cannot disappear either....it was a tricky one, but according to the rules, a player was run behind, he gained an advantage.....and for some bizaare reason it was BOTD....they just make it up as they go along


User avatar
stryker
Member
Member
Posts: 10825
Joined: Sun 19 Jul, 2009 4:16 pm
Location: Cairns

Post by stryker » Sun 26 Aug, 2012 11:55 pm

Realy doesnt matter in the context of this game, however it is yet another example of how confusing this rule has become. It was an obstruction. I dont understand why it was given.

you know who
Member
Member
Posts: 670
Joined: Thu 03 Mar, 2011 1:58 pm
Location: Western Suburbs

Post by you know who » Mon 27 Aug, 2012 7:01 am

No try how these clowns come up with these decisions makes mee wonder how the hell can they come up with stupid decisions again and again they looked it umpteen times as well

User avatar
cunno
Member
Member
Posts: 4389
Joined: Wed 28 Jul, 2010 7:42 pm

Post by cunno » Mon 27 Aug, 2012 7:05 am

The only time we will see a penalty for obstruction is next Sat night if the Wests Tigers run one.

User avatar
RatedRKO
Member
Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Sun 12 Jul, 2009 10:57 pm

Post by RatedRKO » Mon 27 Aug, 2012 7:19 am

I thought it was funny that he sent out that video explaining what an obstruction was, and then that same try was given the next weekend.

Wouldn't have changed the result at all, but still stupid.

you know who
Member
Member
Posts: 670
Joined: Thu 03 Mar, 2011 1:58 pm
Location: Western Suburbs

Post by you know who » Mon 27 Aug, 2012 8:13 am

with the amount of incorrect referring decsions being made the referees dont like us one bit

User avatar
Centaur
Member
Member
Posts: 1572
Joined: Sun 12 Jul, 2009 2:35 pm

Post by Centaur » Mon 27 Aug, 2012 10:48 am

Blatant obstruction in my opinion - Mini got between Utai and the ball carrier - you can't do it.

That said - it would have made bugger all difference to the result.


Posted using RoarFEED 2012

domster
Member
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu 08 Oct, 2009 12:45 pm

Post by domster » Mon 27 Aug, 2012 11:18 am

Forget the obstruction, what about the forward pass from Pearce just before the obstruction this. Oh that's right, we can not rule on that...

fergiefurr
Member
Member
Posts: 2865
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 1:18 pm

Post by fergiefurr » Mon 27 Aug, 2012 12:06 pm

Should have been no try but wouldn't have made a difference


Posted using RoarFEED 2012

User avatar
Frank the tank
Member
Member
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun 13 Nov, 2011 5:20 pm
Location: Sydney boy living in NZ

Post by Frank the tank » Mon 27 Aug, 2012 12:21 pm

GNR4LIFE wrote:Does it matter? hardly a major talking point i wouldn't have thought
Exactly
I'm not a complete idiot.............there are some pieces missing!

Brndn
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat 11 Jul, 2009 8:18 pm

Post by Brndn » Mon 27 Aug, 2012 5:32 pm

We always seem to attract questionable refereeing :(. The two obstruction calls were ridiculous, and unfortunately means teams will try this a lot more if they can keep getting away with it. Which is a problem because it is so hard to defend against.

Has the rule on obstructions changed or something? because surely it's against the rules still?

User avatar
kh_canada
Member
Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Tue 12 Jun, 2012 2:08 pm
Location: Brisbane

Post by kh_canada » Mon 27 Aug, 2012 7:25 pm

I thought refs were schooled on this earlier this week? :S


Posted using RoarFEED 2012
The Huth... the Huth... the Huth is on fire

ambostu
Member
Member
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue 17 Jan, 2012 1:14 pm

Post by ambostu » Mon 27 Aug, 2012 10:17 pm

Not that it mattered but Stuart Raper has come out and admitted that the Pearce try "could have been ruled obstruction and disallowed". Still can't get it right...



Posted using RoarFEED 2012

jjstokes

Post by jjstokes » Mon 27 Aug, 2012 10:29 pm

It would not have made a difference in the overall result. But as Sheens mentioned in the press conference its 6 points against us that may or may not make a difference at the end of the season.


Posted using RoarFEED 2012

Post Reply