Bunker blues

User avatar
pHyR3
Member
Member
Posts: 5030
Joined: Tue 12 Feb, 2013 7:11 pm

Re: Bunker blues

Unread post by pHyR3 » Tue 30 Aug, 2016 1:44 pm

Juro wrote:
pHyR3 wrote:
sideline eye wrote:
LARDS wrote: Its not so simple as that.
You have to take into account the forward velocity of the player throwing the pass.
If he's running at full pelt a legal pass will travel forward with respect to the ground.
The best people to judge a forward pass is the touch judges who are running on the same line as the play.
I guess they could have cameras on each side that travel with the line of play, or just get the touchies to do their job.
It is asking too much for officials to take into account the pace of the passer. A forward pass is a forward pass is a........
ummm... no its not?

check the definition of a forward pass first

That video is for union, not league. Are the rules the same?
yes
''Everybody talks about their four brothers, we have 17 here so we don't really care about them."


User avatar
jirskyr
Member
Member
Posts: 4887
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 12:00 pm
Has liked: 121 times
Been liked: 132 times

Unread post by jirskyr » Tue 30 Aug, 2016 4:53 pm

Tiger Come Lately wrote:I listened to the Archer interview and he claimed (I'm not quoting just paraphrasing) that after the Obstruction other players had the opportunity to make the tackle and that the try was on the other side of the park?????

This is only the case because the warriors player used his team mate to gain an advantage. It shouldn't matter what happens after the event. What matters is that the player JR at that point in time was denied an opportunity to make the tackle Full Stop. it doesn't matter if he would have or wouldn't have, it doesn't matter who else had the opportunity to make the tackle and it doesn't matter where the try was scored.

Archer says "he runs behind a team mate" thats a shepherd. What happens after and where the try is scored has no baring this is why the NRL struggle with rulings!!

SO if i hold up a bank and get no money and hurt nobody, then have I really committed a crime??
Totally agree.

Either Rankin was obstructed or he was not; what happened next with Edwards is irrelevant. Did Lolohea obtain an advantage? Yes he did, by avoiding an attempted tackle that bought him extra time to step and throw a better pass.

For mine, the Johnston one is only different because he runs forward into the hole behind the block, not across. But Archer is giving opinions - the press in NZ are going off like they've been robbed, though it's still just Archer's personal interpretation of those two tries.

In fact I could understand, though not agree with, an argument where the Johnston try is in fact awarded because Woods is too far off the play to make a realistic tackle on Johnston. Just another interpretation, what we are looking for is consistency of interpretation.

formerguest
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 3196
Joined: Fri 07 Jun, 2013 7:33 pm
Has liked: 229 times
Been liked: 76 times

Unread post by formerguest » Tue 30 Aug, 2016 5:41 pm

jirskyr wrote:
Tiger Come Lately wrote:I listened to the Archer interview and he claimed (I'm not quoting just paraphrasing) that after the Obstruction other players had the opportunity to make the tackle and that the try was on the other side of the park?????

This is only the case because the warriors player used his team mate to gain an advantage. It shouldn't matter what happens after the event. What matters is that the player JR at that point in time was denied an opportunity to make the tackle Full Stop. it doesn't matter if he would have or wouldn't have, it doesn't matter who else had the opportunity to make the tackle and it doesn't matter where the try was scored.

Archer says "he runs behind a team mate" thats a shepherd. What happens after and where the try is scored has no baring this is why the NRL struggle with rulings!!

SO if i hold up a bank and get no money and hurt nobody, then have I really committed a crime??
Totally agree.

Either Rankin was obstructed or he was not; what happened next with Edwards is irrelevant. Did Lolohea obtain an advantage? Yes he did, by avoiding an attempted tackle that bought him extra time to step and throw a better pass.

For mine, the Johnston one is only different because he runs forward into the hole behind the block, not across. But Archer is giving opinions - the press in NZ are going off like they've been robbed, though it's still just Archer's personal interpretation of those two tries.

In fact I could understand, though not agree with, an argument where the Johnston try is in fact awarded because Woods is too far off the play to make a realistic tackle on Johnston. Just another interpretation, what we are looking for is consistency of interpretation.
Yeah, just like I wrote in the live thread, it has always been a shepherd and only recently have they made a rod for their own backs with the interpretation crap. I would have absolutely no problem with either of those being taken off us.

Post Reply

Return to “Round 25: Wests Tigers vs New Zealand Warriors”