That Try that wasn't

Post Reply
User avatar
hugh1954
Member
Member
Posts: 389
Joined: Fri 17 May, 2013 10:10 pm
Location: Maitland

That Try that wasn't

Post by hugh1954 » Sun 27 Apr, 2014 7:03 pm

I think that game was one tat we needed confidence from the beginning that the referees didn't allow with their unpredictable calling. Then when we score a legitimate try that may spark some enthusiasm form the boys, the video ref makes a clinger, How far away from the ball does the interference rule have to be. I can see players running into attacking players for any reason if they can get away with it.


southerntiger
Member
Member
Posts: 4381
Joined: Sun 12 Jul, 2009 6:24 pm
Location: Sydney

Post by southerntiger » Sun 27 Apr, 2014 7:16 pm

hugh1954 wrote:I think that game was one tat we needed confidence from the beginning that the referees didn't allow with their unpredictable calling. Then when we score a legitimate try that may spark some enthusiasm form the boys, the video ref makes a clinger, How far away from the ball does the interference rule have to be. I can see players running into attacking players for any reason if they can get away with it.
I thought the call was correct. Stupid play by Bodene.

Posted using RoarFEED V.4

User avatar
Love the WestsTigers
Member
Member
Posts: 3161
Joined: Wed 21 Jul, 2010 12:03 pm
Location: Ex Ctown Resident Now Qlander

Post by Love the WestsTigers » Sun 27 Apr, 2014 7:18 pm

i was upset at the time but then realised we benefited from a similar call last week.(Easter Monday)

Ours was more of a try but then again ....................

User avatar
Flippedy
Member
Member
Posts: 7913
Joined: Mon 19 Oct, 2009 10:58 pm
Location: Central Coast NSW

Post by Flippedy » Sun 27 Apr, 2014 7:26 pm

It was a fair try, imo. The player taken out would never had stopped the try being scored, he was miles away! The refs need to evaluate this a whole lot better than they have been.
Sooner or later, next year has to be this year - Ricksen

BlackandGoldForever
Member
Member
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed 19 Mar, 2014 12:39 pm

Post by BlackandGoldForever » Sun 27 Apr, 2014 9:25 pm

I am over the rule toss a coin is what they do for it now it's a joke it's ruining the game


User avatar
MacDougall
Member
Member
Posts: 7920
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 4:03 am
Location: Brisbane, QLD

Post by MacDougall » Sun 27 Apr, 2014 9:34 pm

Yeah I preferred it in recent years. That they have somehow made it worse is ridiculous.

happy tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 39125
Joined: Sun 27 Feb, 2011 4:49 pm

Post by happy tiger » Sun 27 Apr, 2014 9:54 pm

southerntiger wrote:
hugh1954 wrote:I think that game was one tat we needed confidence from the beginning that the referees didn't allow with their unpredictable calling. Then when we score a legitimate try that may spark some enthusiasm form the boys, the video ref makes a clinger, How far away from the ball does the interference rule have to be. I can see players running into attacking players for any reason if they can get away with it.
I thought the call was correct. Stupid play by Bodene.

Posted using RoarFEED V.4
No try totally agree

It can't be that hard to run through the line , not stop or make contact with the defender

User avatar
Jazza
Member
Member
Posts: 1980
Joined: Sat 11 Jul, 2009 1:38 am
Location: Glen Alpine

Post by Jazza » Sun 27 Apr, 2014 9:56 pm

Based on last week, I would say it was a fair call today. However, I hate the obstruction rule. I don't remember hearing this much conjecture about the obstruction 10-15 years ago. They should get rid of this rule where if a guy is taken out, it is no try, forget about this inside shoulder business and just wipe the slate clean. Place it at the discretion of the referees with one simple question. If someone has been taken out, would he of affected the play or not?

Also, with two referees on the field, we shouldn't even need to go to the video ref to determine what is an obstruction or not. The pocket referee should look at the play, have a feel for the game and be able to determine if an obstruction has occurred or not. He would have the perfect view for it.
Gee its grouse at hardware house!

User avatar
Cultured Bogan
Member
Member
Posts: 17203
Joined: Tue 15 Sep, 2009 11:20 pm
Location: Blue Mountains

Post by Cultured Bogan » Sun 27 Apr, 2014 10:05 pm

If the one involving Brooks was no try last week, this weeks call is definitely correct.
Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest!

Cuando llegue el día, y estoy parado a las puertas del cielo, será Dios pidiendo mi perdón...

User avatar
Juro
Member
Member
Posts: 2631
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 9:15 am

Post by Juro » Mon 28 Apr, 2014 9:38 am

The main difference I saw between this try and the one in the Parra game was the distance between where the collision occurred and where the ball went afterwards. I know I am biased but I thought our one was a fair try...
I've been a member since 2012. We last played finals football in 2011. Just saying...

mremedy
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu 11 Feb, 2010 10:34 am

Post by mremedy » Mon 28 Apr, 2014 10:14 am

People are asking for some consistency in this area; however I think that the two disallowed tries in the last two Tigers games are a display of consistency.

If the decoy runner comes in contact with a defender, that is obstruction.

Some people are talking about proximity and “would the defender have stopped the try”. How grey is that?

Define proximity, does proximity change when a slow forward is obstructed compared to a fast back? How do we know if the defender would have stopped the try? As soon as the inside defender is taken out, the whole dynamic of the defensive structure changes.

Obstruction is a contentious rule, however it is clear that the decoy runner either stops before the defensive line or runs cleanly through it.

happy tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 39125
Joined: Sun 27 Feb, 2011 4:49 pm

Post by happy tiger » Mon 28 Apr, 2014 10:24 am

mremedy wrote:People are asking for some consistency in this area; however I think that the two disallowed tries in the last two Tigers games are a display of consistency.

If the decoy runner comes in contact with a defender, that is obstruction.

Some people are talking about proximity and “would the defender have stopped the try”. How grey is that?

Define proximity, does proximity change when a slow forward is obstructed compared to a fast back? How do we know if the defender would have stopped the try? As soon as the inside defender is taken out, the whole dynamic of the defensive structure changes.

Obstruction is a contentious rule, however it is clear that the decoy runner either stops before the defensive line or runs cleanly through it.
As long as defenders aren't purposely hitting defenders and dropping like a stone I have no issues with that Mremedy

User avatar
Peaches
Member
Member
Posts: 2876
Joined: Sat 11 Jul, 2009 11:35 pm
Location: Mount Pritchard

Post by Peaches » Mon 28 Apr, 2014 4:44 pm

happy tiger wrote:
mremedy wrote:People are asking for some consistency in this area; however I think that the two disallowed tries in the last two Tigers games are a display of consistency.

If the decoy runner comes in contact with a defender, that is obstruction.

Some people are talking about proximity and “would the defender have stopped the try”. How grey is that?

Define proximity, does proximity change when a slow forward is obstructed compared to a fast back? How do we know if the defender would have stopped the try? As soon as the inside defender is taken out, the whole dynamic of the defensive structure changes.

Obstruction is a contentious rule, however it is clear that the decoy runner either stops before the defensive line or runs cleanly through it.
As long as defenders aren't purposely hitting defenders and dropping like a stone I have no issues with that Mremedy
It's up to the decoy runner to either pull up or find the hole in the line in that case. Don't give the defensive line a chance to drop on contact.

Posted using RoarFEED V.4

User avatar
weststigers
Member
Member
Posts: 713
Joined: Sat 11 Jul, 2009 6:25 pm

Post by weststigers » Tue 29 Apr, 2014 7:13 pm

Obstruction rule is an easy one to fix.

The impeded player should be judged on 1 thing:

1. Was the defender bracing himself for contact after a bad read or was he taken out by blatant foul play?
* I.e. was the defender facing and running towards the tryscorer to genuinely stop the try and then been taken out? Or has he made a bad read and stood his ground?

In the case of the Simona try, Sezer stood his ground and braced for contact knowing that he had nothing to lose. He was never going to stop that try, but he had every chance of getting it disallowed by standing his ground. Sezer wasn't even looking at Simona or running towards him to stop that try - a poor rule.

Agree with Happy in that proximity should be defined clearly - if you base it on being able to run 100m in 10 seconds (to give the defending team a reasonable benefit), the player then theoretically can only run 10m per 1 second...the maths can easily be worked out from the video footage to see whether Sezer could have played a part.

Post Reply