Jason Taylor says....

shiretiger

Well-known member
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/obstruction-bulldogs-are-getting-away-with-murder-20120712-21z06.html

Last week against the Wests Tigers, four of the Bulldogs' six tries were scored using illegal obstruction plays.

So we were dudded afterall.

:deadhorse:
 
I will be taking that article with me to my club tonight - proves everything I was going berserk about last week. :smiley:
 
Look at the (Boyds try I think it was) in Origin III from the **head on angle**…thurston recieves the ball on Thaidays left (thaiday decoy) runs behind him to his right, when the defender is blind to thurston getting it.
Thurston then makes long break near the touchline...they eventually score

A good example of how tough it is for defenses to read these plays
 
That's a great article from Taylor. This rule needs to be black and white. If a player with the ball runs behind his own teammate then a penalty needs to be given. If you leave it to refs to decide whether an 'advantage' has been gained then you are leaving yourself wide open to individual's interpretations and opinions and therefore the inevitable inconsistencies. If the rule is black and white, there can be no arguments from anyone. End of story.
 
@yeti said:
That's a great article from Taylor. This rule needs to be black and white. If a player with the ball runs behind his own teammate then a penalty needs to be given. If you leave it to refs to decide whether an 'advantage' has been gained then you are leaving yourself wide open to individual's interpretations and opinions and therefore the inevitable inconsistencies. If the rule is black and white, there can be no arguments from anyone. End of story.

Thats what it always was and as far as i know the rule still is that you can not run behind one of your own players to gain an advantage over the defence - the problem is now its up to the refs to decide if there has been an unfair advantage.
 
Back
Top