Obstruction rule...when is it..when is it not...

T

TrueTiger

Well-known member
If anyone seen the no try Souths v Cows..Morgan scored before halftime…what was your verdict?

Today I read at news.com.nrl...Glen Stewart admitted to taking a dive,no try was awarded..

I said in an earlier thread that Stewart took a dive and was rewarded..Although the Rabbits got beat,this type of blunder should not happen and there should not be a grey area...
There must be a clear and open ruling on what is an obstruction and what isn't ..I feel players are manipulating this particular ruling and are deliberately "taking dives ",in reality the Morgan try to me was a very well played piece of play and instead of being praised for their good work,a simple dive by the opposing player nullified the great play...

In my honest opinion,until the powers that be overhaul this particular area of our game,good games will be ruined and at times the best team could lose because of inept rule interpretation..
\
\
Fellow Forumers I would like your input please,as Iam confused by this ruling......
 
Under my understanding of the current interpretation of the obstruction rule that was a try anyway. the lead runner ran to the inside shoulder, and the man was already behind the defence when stewart took the dive. Error by the video ref.

There are way to many people involved in the decision making process now to get consistency. We need to move to a bunker style NFL review system where all decisions are referred to a centralised review team of 3 or 4.
 
It was a try , simple

Officials have no idea what common sense is , scares me that the ex player in the box didn't pick up on that , or do they get over ruled by the video ref with these calls ??
 
How they didn't award that Try to Morgan before halftime is beyond the joke. Then they wonder why the Cowboys feel hard done by when they play in Sydney.
 
Some of the video ref officiating is terrible…people say "Oh but players and coaches make mistakes too" ....but they dont have the luxury of having a 2nd 3rd 4th etc chance at that mistake.

Milking has been going of for donkeys....Stewart might regret his candid honesty next time he is genuinely obstructed or fouled and the ref thinks hes a little boy crying wolf
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3oPZW_20QA

tony archer says it was wrongly awarded a try, they do their best. and a lot of the time they are actually right and the commentators/we are wrong. e.g. Good Friday with the penalty, everyone was wrong the ref was 100% right.
 
Happy,FT,Larrycorowa….why can't the NRL get all the officials together for a meeting one day during the week,before game time and say you guys are very inconsistent with the obstruction ruling....this is what you have to do in the case of an obstruction... xdxdsdxd etc....

Make a solid ruling and stick to it no ifs or buts..no grey area,no arguments from Captains ( even though Jonathon was quite right in what he said) ..while these absurd differentiating rulings keep going on,our game is getting a bad reputation and it needs to stop....
 
Just an observation on diving - i noticed the perennial diver Greg Bird take a fall to get a penalty the other day - video ref looked and it was obvious Bird was hit around the chest. Both Bird and the ref had a chuckle and then play on. Personally i am sick of this rubbish and would like to see a penalty given everytime its shown a player has taken a dive as is done in soccer. After a few penalties are handed out i'm sure this diving rubbish will stop.
 
@diedpretty said:
Just an observation on diving - i noticed the perennial diver Greg Bird take a fall to get a penalty the other day - video ref looked and it was obvious Bird was hit around the chest. Both Bird and the ref had a chuckle and then play on. Personally i am sick of this rubbish and would like to see a penalty given everytime its shown a player has taken a dive as is done in soccer. After a few penalties are handed out i'm sure this diving rubbish will stop.
Click to expand...

I certainly agree about penalties given against divers. Judging by Stewart's statements below these divers think that they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. It also helps if the referee sees diving as a funny joke.

"On Tuesday at a Rabbitohs' recovery session, Stewart admitted to taking a dive to draw the obstruction ruling, describing it as "gamesmanship". "To be honest I wasn't going to get there (to tackle Morgan) so I tried something and it came off," he said.
"Everyone wants to win. I wasn't going to get to the bloke so I had a crack and fortunately it went our way. "In a game you do everything you can to win and I just had a crack." Steward made no apologies for his actions. "I was pretty surprised to be honest (they didn't award the try).
 
In my opinion the interpretation should be "would the player impeded have stopped the try?". If not, award the try, if so, penalty for the defensive side.

Morgan was past Stewart by the time Stewart changed directions and took a dive. Stewart was never going to lay a hand on him. Wrong decision by the video ref.

_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_
 
I reckon they get this right almost all the time. I think Gus tries to make out it is a mess cause he doesnt like the rule and deliberately confuses the issue. There are some decisions which are less clear cut and wrong

The one on monday night is not as clear cut mistake as it seems. If you notice the first time the decoy runner goes through the line, he makes contact with Stewart and pushing him towards the side line, away from the spot morgan goes through when he comes back inside through the hole, on the other side of the decoy. There is a decent argument for the first contact being the obstruction. In that case he did not go through the line cleanly, and initiated contact, Stewart was moving past him, the hole was created somewhat by Stewart being pushed wider than he otherwise would have been.
No doubt that the second contact when Stewart fell over, was not an obstruction. Watched a few replays and I reckon the first contact is a coin toss, staying with the onfield decision was no where near as bad as made out to be.

As for comments in relation to the player impeding not being able stop the try then allowing it, this is not a good rule. If a player is obstructed the rest of line is effected, the try might be scored out wider but made possible by the obstruction further in.
 
@Goose said:
As for comments in relation to the player impeding not being able stop the try then allowing it, this is not a good rule. If a player is obstructed the rest of line is effected, the try might be scored out wider but made possible by the obstruction further in.
Click to expand...

Agree with this 100%
 
Guys guys guys this rule is one of the most easiest rules to understand.Let me explain as I answer the question of the OP.

THE OBSTRUCTION RULE WHEN IS IT WHEN IS IT NOT.???

When is it obstruction?When the try scorer is a player from the Wests tigers,cowboys or Panthers.

When is it not obstruction? When the try scorer is from Souths,Manly or Easts.

Apply this rule to all rules within the NRL and you will be given unsackable god like status as a referee in the NRL(AKA Shayne Hayne and Ashley Klein etc)
 
Goose, what you are saying would be a slight variation in the current interpretation (as i understand it). The lead runner can come in contact with the defense as long as it is on the inside shoulder. Even if the defender takes a dive in this situation it is ok and not ruled as obstruction. Otherwise the defender would just take a dive on any contact with the lead runner (penalty).

I may be wrong.
 
@Jerry Seinfeld said:
THE OBSTRUCTION RULE WHEN IS IT WHEN IS IT NOT.???

When is it obstruction?When the try scorer is a player from the Wests tigers,cowboys or Panthers.

When is it not obstruction? When the try scorer is from Souths,Manly or Easts.
Click to expand...

Was going to say much the same thing. All depends on which club you come from, like most 50/50 calls :wink:
 
Sydney Roosters coach Trent Robinson has called on the NRL to stamp out diving, saying video referees should not be used to determine penalties on the field. Earlier this week, South Sydney's Glenn Stewart admitted to taking a dive to draw an obstruction ruling and deny North Queensland a try on Monday night. Robinson has been an outspoken critic about the rise of diving in the game and claims it'll continue as long as players know they can get away with hoodwinking on-field officials via video referral.

"I think my views have been very clear about the philosophy of diving and players have said that it's OK to dive apparently," Robinson said. "I don't think the video refs should be included in that decision. The refs are there to adjudicate on fouls and should do that. "If they miss it, then don't encourage lying down to get a penalty. That is just not our game. "It's what separates us from other sports. The hierarchy need to clamp down on it and say 'we understand it's a loophole in our system so let's get rid of it'. "If it's a bad shot or infringement, then it will get suspended.

"There is more suspensions than ever; the match review committee have been firm on clearing up the game so let them do that. Don't let the video ref be the Match Review Committee."
 
@Geo. said:
The answer is….........................a pineapple
Click to expand...

Yeah well that about sums up the obstruction rule perfectly. It's a blight on the game, imo - like the rough end of a pineapple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 1,171 (members: 0, guests: 1,171)
Back
Top