Obstruction rule

ImageImageImage
Post Reply
Tiger_heart
Member
Member
Posts: 636
Joined: Sun 12 Jul, 2009 1:28 pm

Obstruction rule

Post by Tiger_heart » Fri 05 Jul, 2013 9:27 pm

They must be kidding...cost us as much as the Marshall kick tonight.. but whereas the second was blatant (and not unexpected) the first one has no reason to be given a no try, I don't care how you look at it...


PYMBLEPETE
Member
Member
Posts: 1033
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 9:15 pm

Post by PYMBLEPETE » Fri 05 Jul, 2013 9:37 pm

I have trained my dog to do more clever things; how hard is it to train a first grade footballer running a decoy not to contact the defence??? Just dumb play - dont blame the refs.

User avatar
mike
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 1575
Joined: Mon 28 Jun, 2010 8:32 pm
Location: Hornsby

Post by mike » Fri 05 Jul, 2013 9:40 pm

PYMBLEPETE wrote:I have trained my dog to do more clever things; how hard is it to train a first grade footballer running a decoy not to contact the defence??? Just dumb play - dont blame the refs.
Mate the defender chased and tackled him. There was no obstruction.

Posted using RoarFEED 2013
Western Suburbs supporter since 1960 | Balmain junior since 1967 | Wests Tigers supporter since 1999

happy tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 39017
Joined: Sun 27 Feb, 2011 4:49 pm

Post by happy tiger » Fri 05 Jul, 2013 9:41 pm

No issue with the call , I know he was on the outside shoulder but the defender could of still made an impact

The Mills knock on that they missed with about 8 to go was the bad one

1/4 chicken,chips
Member
Member
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat 30 Jul, 2011 10:28 am

Post by 1/4 chicken,chips » Fri 05 Jul, 2013 9:47 pm

a dead set try when rugby league was a REAL game .too many games are decided by the man with the whistle . Mills deadest knock on to a player in front of him with 8 to go , should have been our ball 15 out ,o if marshall found touch ...


User avatar
Golden
Member
Member
Posts: 3017
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 9:56 pm

Post by Golden » Fri 05 Jul, 2013 10:01 pm

should have been 30 -28 and we would have won with 10 to go with all the momentum

once again the refs show inconstancy with that joke of a rule

Shooshmeister
Member
Member
Posts: 610
Joined: Tue 25 Sep, 2012 9:12 pm

Post by Shooshmeister » Sun 07 Jul, 2013 12:20 am

I know they say the call was correct, but there was no way in hell they inside guy was anywhere near him, flat out close enough to stop him. This Rule needs to be rectified before kick off for 2014.

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 » Sun 07 Jul, 2013 3:23 pm

If it was the other way around (we were defending and it was given a no try) no one would be complaining ......... even a little bit.

It was a fare enough call that's been consistent with pretty much all the other obstruction calls lately.
I'm not a complete idiot.............there are some pieces missing!

User avatar
simonthetiger
Member
Member
Posts: 3396
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 9:12 pm

Post by simonthetiger » Sun 07 Jul, 2013 4:06 pm

Shooshmeister wrote:I know they say the call was correct, but there was no way in hell they inside guy was anywhere near him, flat out close enough to stop him. This Rule needs to be rectified before kick off for 2014.

I thought they rejigged the rule to suit this.......the player had no chance of getting lawrence,yet its a no try.

Im mystified.

User avatar
smeghead
Site Moderator
Site Moderator
Posts: 9451
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 11:56 pm

Post by smeghead » Sun 07 Jul, 2013 4:20 pm

It was a 50/50 call for mine.

In saying that the biggest problem is BMM. He has cost us 3 certain trys this season by not stopping himself barging over guys when a decoy runner
Image

User avatar
Winnipeg
Member
Member
Posts: 1152
Joined: Fri 15 Jan, 2010 6:57 pm

Post by Winnipeg » Sun 07 Jul, 2013 6:33 pm

I swear they only penalise 1 out of every 10 times that a player runs around the back of a teammate (when no contact is made, as in the Farah penalty)

Farah's been pinned twice for it this year though

User avatar
jirskyr
Member
Member
Posts: 5476
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 12:00 pm

Post by jirskyr » Mon 08 Jul, 2013 11:49 am

smeghead wrote:It was a 50/50 call for mine.

In saying that the biggest problem is BMM. He has cost us 3 certain trys this season by not stopping himself barging over guys when a decoy runner
That is true, but this time around I think BMM was hard done by. He was collected from the side, he doesn't run over the top of Bukuya.

Bukuya milked this one pure and simple. By my understanding of the rule, I expected it to be called an obstruction, but I think the reinterpretation this year is in error when players who are beaten on the slide can contact a decoy when they have no chance of affecting the play. Gould said it during the call, Bukuya was in the perfect position to tackle BMM should he have received the ball, meaning Bukuya had made the mistake in read. He realises he's made a mistake and follows through into BMM and topples over.

Woodsie had a similar one last week, except he raises his hands "in innocence" once he reaches the defenders, one of whom has to push around him. That try was given.

I feel for BMM, how is a 105 kg bloke at high speed supposed to pull out of the play. The best ploy would be to continue running another 5-10 metres through the line and beyond, to ensure no type of cover can interfere with you. But that isn't in a player's normal instinct, you normal pull up when you don't get the ball.

Goose
Member
Member
Posts: 4619
Joined: Tue 21 Sep, 2010 2:46 pm
Location: Concord

Post by Goose » Mon 08 Jul, 2013 3:13 pm

I thought they got this wrong, he was on the outside shoulder and the defender initiated contact, 2 of the indicators. Had he of said try first time up, it would have remained.
We had some things go against us in the game

User avatar
izotope
Member
Member
Posts: 1027
Joined: Mon 20 Jul, 2009 10:53 pm

Post by izotope » Mon 08 Jul, 2013 3:57 pm

i Thought they made this black and white at the start of the year, then changed it after a backlash to allow interpretation.

No way would he of got anywhere near the action.

I agree with sterlo in it should be obstruction if he hasn't taken advantage of the decoy runner - which lawrence didn't
tigers!

User avatar
Eye Of Da Tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 2012
Joined: Wed 16 Jan, 2013 10:49 pm

Post by Eye Of Da Tiger » Wed 10 Jul, 2013 8:23 am

It is what it is. Or is it I can't 100 per cent understand the interpretation but I don't feel stupid cause neither do the referees

Post Reply