Bunker blues

User avatar
innsaneink
Member
Member
Posts: 29558
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 9:49 pm
Location: ...ahead of you....

Re: Bunker blues

Post by innsaneink » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 5:20 am

Nelson wrote:
Geo. wrote:Shepherd's are Shepherds..When you ran behind your own player everyone knew it was a penalty..simple..

They then had to change it to obstruction ..you get the ..Was the defender impeded from making a tackle inside shoulder outside shoulder.... blah blah blah BS...

Rod for there own back...
It's simple for the players - if you're running across the field behind your teammates and you suddenly see a gap that looks too good to be true then it probably is.
Smart defenders will just ''get impeded'' by running into an attacking player just in case it goe to the VR


southerntiger
Member
Member
Posts: 4393
Joined: Sun 12 Jul, 2009 6:24 pm
Location: Sydney

Post by southerntiger » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 6:43 am

Geo. wrote:Shepherd's are Shepherds..When you ran behind your own player everyone knew it was a penalty..simple..

They then had to change it to obstruction ..you get the ..Was the defender impeded from making a tackle inside shoulder outside shoulder.... blah blah blah BS...

Rod for there own back...
A shepherd is still a shepherd. Simple rule that TV commentators get angry at because it lacks common sense in their view. You run behind a player and get an advantage, its a penalty.

We lost a game 12 months ago when Farah ran behind his own player. Farah was much further away from the person in front of him too.

southerntiger
Member
Member
Posts: 4393
Joined: Sun 12 Jul, 2009 6:24 pm
Location: Sydney

Post by southerntiger » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 6:45 am

innsaneink wrote:
Nelson wrote:
Geo. wrote:Shepherd's are Shepherds..When you ran behind your own player everyone knew it was a penalty..simple..

They then had to change it to obstruction ..you get the ..Was the defender impeded from making a tackle inside shoulder outside shoulder.... blah blah blah BS...

Rod for there own back...
It's simple for the players - if you're running across the field behind your teammates and you suddenly see a gap that looks too good to be true then it probably is.
Smart defenders will just ''get impeded'' by running into an attacking player just in case it goe to the VR
That the price you pay for running behind your own player. This aint gridiron.

User avatar
Masterton
Member
Member
Posts: 2529
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 6:57 pm

Post by Masterton » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 7:03 am

southerntiger wrote:
innsaneink wrote:
Nelson wrote:
Geo. wrote:Shepherd's are Shepherds..When you ran behind your own player everyone knew it was a penalty..simple..

They then had to change it to obstruction ..you get the ..Was the defender impeded from making a tackle inside shoulder outside shoulder.... blah blah blah BS...

Rod for there own back...
It's simple for the players - if you're running across the field behind your teammates and you suddenly see a gap that looks too good to be true then it probably is.
Smart defenders will just ''get impeded'' by running into an attacking player just in case it goe to the VR
That the price you pay for running behind your own player. This aint gridiron.
Exactly. Start giving the players any more leeway, and coaches will suddenly come up with some new "moves" involving players running behind other players.

Players (esp. Johnson) should know not to run behind others, and they should also know not to contact defenders if someone is running behind them. Jump out the way if you have to.
"I was on the bus before you painted it yellow."

goldcoast tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 6392
Joined: Sat 12 Apr, 2014 5:42 pm

Post by goldcoast tiger » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 7:05 am

Harvey wrote:I would actually like that one clarified. They ruled Mannering was more than 10 away (he was to the side), but he was in line with the contest. I thought they had to to stay 10m back.
Harvey, They have to be outside a 10 metre circle around the receiver.
As long as they are outside it they are ok. It doesn't matter if they are in line with the receiver


shiretiger
Member
Member
Posts: 358
Joined: Sun 12 Jul, 2009 6:57 pm
Location: The Shire

Post by shiretiger » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 8:15 am

No one has mentioned the decision to go to the Bunker for the No Try because JAC grounded the ball early in the first half.

I can only assume that it was time for a Chicken Ad because there wasn't a Warrior within 2 metres of him.

hobbo
Member
Member
Posts: 10167
Joined: Mon 10 Mar, 2014 5:03 pm

Post by hobbo » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 8:39 am

shiretiger wrote:No one has mentioned the decision to go to the Bunker for the No Try because JAC grounded the ball early in the first half.

I can only assume that it was time for a Chicken Ad because there wasn't a Warrior within 2 metres of him.
Makes you wonder how much the ......
Kids
Fattening
Centre

Are paying pet chicken ad !?
We need mongrel ..
No more plodders !

Newtown
Member
Member
Posts: 5660
Joined: Fri 28 Sep, 2012 8:40 am

Post by Newtown » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 9:34 am

What goes around comes around.

shifty
Member
Member
Posts: 328
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 11:15 am

Post by shifty » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 10:02 am

Woods played the rules perfectly. Anthony Milford has a habbit of playing the rules too, im sure he did it to us before, had no chance of tackling a player, takes a dive off one of our players shoulder with minimal contact, try disallowed and a penalty broncos. Not to mention the other night against storm, where he threw a pass to a storm players back who was laying next to the ruck..

If the rules can be exploited for our gain, go for it. But geez will i be livid if it happens against us again haha

Gary Bakerloo
Member
Member
Posts: 2463
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 7:22 pm

Post by Gary Bakerloo » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 10:09 am

They need to be able to rule on forward passes. We have a "world record" line for swimming races, why can't we have similar technology for forward passes? Such technology would enable to the bunker to see the ball leave hands in a forward direction.

User avatar
joebob
Member
Member
Posts: 284
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 4:15 pm
Location: Concord West

Post by joebob » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 10:13 am

shiretiger wrote:No one has mentioned the decision to go to the Bunker for the No Try because JAC grounded the ball early in the first half.

I can only assume that it was time for a Chicken Ad because there wasn't a Warrior within 2 metres of him.
They thought that JAC had pushed Ayhsford

Sco77y
Member
Member
Posts: 789
Joined: Fri 12 Jul, 2013 2:22 pm

Post by Sco77y » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 10:18 am

GNR4LIFE wrote:The decision that nearly cost us was Manu's foot on the line from the 40/20. We were just starting to get on top, and they pulled that try out of their backside. We had the character to overcome that though.
We did well to recover from that. To not see that and let it go was a shocker.. Officials just can't get those calls wrong, and they rarely do, but unfortunately this time they did and it really hurt us. We have just as much right to complain about the officiating in that game as the Warriors, I mean they're up in arms about a try that shouldn't have even been a try! :crazy At least we have legitimate criticisms.

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

Post by Winnipeg » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 10:21 am

The fox team (not the kiwi commentators who are always the worst) were acting like the two obstruction calls were the worst decisions in the history of the game. I thought they were both fair calls. You can't run around your own man... we get pinged for it all the time, even when a try isn't scored.

They were also acting like Woods is the first player in history to make contact and call for a penalty... it happens all the bloody time.

User avatar
Kavi
Member
Member
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon 28 Apr, 2014 4:29 pm

Post by Kavi » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 10:22 am

pHyR3 wrote:
Harvey wrote:Seems a lot of people are up in arms about the Warriors tries disallowed because of obstruction. Lot of comments that these cost the warriors the game.

Seem to be overlooking the forward passes in the lead up to one of the tries, Mannering scoring from a kick batted back to him despite the fact he was in front of the kicker, and the try scored off the set after Manu knocked the 40/20 kick back witha foot on the sideline.

The officiating this year has been terrible across the board.
i thought both tries were ruled on correctly, and as you pointed out there was a forward pass but i didnt notice it watching it live. still think the bunker should be allowed to rule on that - i believe they are in union

the try off the kick was perfectly legitimate by the rules. they were not in the 10, when ayshford bats it back that places them onside. a try every day of the week. unlucky for us, but the ball bounces for and against you

speaking independently, manu's foot was maybe 2cm on the touch line when he batted it back?? are you really gonna crucify the touchy for that?? i had no idea one way or another watching live.

speaking as a tigers fan, yeah that was pretty bloody annoying....
it would be very hard to rule on forward passes they would need to have a ton more cameras

matchball
Member
Member
Posts: 1724
Joined: Tue 18 Nov, 2014 3:21 pm

Post by matchball » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 11:10 am

Both teams got dud calls but we didn't switch off. They did in the last 10.

User avatar
jirskyr
Member
Member
Posts: 6100
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 12:00 pm

Post by jirskyr » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 3:26 pm

I think Rankin milked it more than Woods. Rank definitely added some theatrics and open arms, Woods sort of ambled up, saw a defender in his road and pushed him, then complained once Johnston had run around.

But I'm with everyone here - regardless of being a Tigers or Warriors supporter, you can't run around your own player to advantage. JT said it twice in the presser and he is right.

Some commentators / media seem to think the rule changes if you are attacking from a set play or in broken play, saying things like "was he supposed to disappear?" Smart teams have worked out to pass or lob behind the decoy, so you can't get pinged for running around, but we all need to remember that decoy / block runners essentially make themselves offside and it is not the defender's obligation to run the obstacle course they sometimes present.

User avatar
sideline eye
Member
Member
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri 07 Mar, 2014 5:42 pm

Post by sideline eye » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 3:29 pm

They wouldn't need any more cameras to rule on forward passes. All they need to do is superimpose a grid on the field and then see which way the ball goes on that grid. It could be done quickly and simply. Forward passes are a blight on the game as you just can't defend against them.

The_Doc
Member
Member
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat 03 Oct, 2009 11:18 am
Location: Central Coast

Post by The_Doc » Mon 29 Aug, 2016 3:43 pm

sideline eye wrote:They wouldn't need any more cameras to rule on forward passes. All they need to do is superimpose a grid on the field and then see which way the ball goes on that grid. It could be done quickly and simply. Forward passes are a blight on the game as you just can't defend against them.
They should use the soccer model which shows offsides, the 10 yrd ring for free kicks both adequately could show the 10m rule, i agree its simple if they can do it in the A league premier league ect why cant the NRL do it :bash

Post Reply