Obstruction rule

Tiger_heart

Tiger_heart

Well-known member
They must be kidding…cost us as much as the Marshall kick tonight.. but whereas the second was blatant (and not unexpected) the first one has no reason to be given a no try, I don't care how you look at it...
 
I have trained my dog to do more clever things; how hard is it to train a first grade footballer running a decoy not to contact the defence??? Just dumb play - dont blame the refs.
 
@PYMBLEPETE said:
I have trained my dog to do more clever things; how hard is it to train a first grade footballer running a decoy not to contact the defence??? Just dumb play - dont blame the refs.
Click to expand...

Mate the defender chased and tackled him. There was no obstruction.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
 
No issue with the call , I know he was on the outside shoulder but the defender could of still made an impact

The Mills knock on that they missed with about 8 to go was the bad one
 
a dead set try when rugby league was a REAL game .too many games are decided by the man with the whistle . Mills deadest knock on to a player in front of him with 8 to go , should have been our ball 15 out ,o if marshall found touch …
 
should have been 30 -28 and we would have won with 10 to go with all the momentum

once again the refs show inconstancy with that joke of a rule
 
I know they say the call was correct, but there was no way in hell they inside guy was anywhere near him, flat out close enough to stop him. This Rule needs to be rectified before kick off for 2014.
 
If it was the other way around (we were defending and it was given a no try) no one would be complaining …...... even a little bit.

It was a fare enough call that's been consistent with pretty much all the other obstruction calls lately.
 
@Shooshmeister said:
I know they say the call was correct, but there was no way in hell they inside guy was anywhere near him, flat out close enough to stop him. This Rule needs to be rectified before kick off for 2014.
Click to expand...

I thought they rejigged the rule to suit this…....the player had no chance of getting lawrence,yet its a no try.

Im mystified.
 
It was a 50/50 call for mine.

In saying that the biggest problem is BMM. He has cost us 3 certain trys this season by not stopping himself barging over guys when a decoy runner
 
I swear they only penalise 1 out of every 10 times that a player runs around the back of a teammate (when no contact is made, as in the Farah penalty)

Farah's been pinned twice for it this year though
 
@smeghead said:
It was a 50/50 call for mine.

In saying that the biggest problem is BMM. He has cost us 3 certain trys this season by not stopping himself barging over guys when a decoy runner
Click to expand...

That is true, but this time around I think BMM was hard done by. He was collected from the side, he doesn't run over the top of Bukuya.

Bukuya milked this one pure and simple. By my understanding of the rule, I expected it to be called an obstruction, but I think the reinterpretation this year is in error when players who are beaten on the slide can contact a decoy when they have no chance of affecting the play. Gould said it during the call, Bukuya was in the perfect position to tackle BMM should he have received the ball, meaning Bukuya had made the mistake in read. He realises he's made a mistake and follows through into BMM and topples over.

Woodsie had a similar one last week, except he raises his hands "in innocence" once he reaches the defenders, one of whom has to push around him. That try was given.

I feel for BMM, how is a 105 kg bloke at high speed supposed to pull out of the play. The best ploy would be to continue running another 5-10 metres through the line and beyond, to ensure no type of cover can interfere with you. But that isn't in a player's normal instinct, you normal pull up when you don't get the ball.
 
I thought they got this wrong, he was on the outside shoulder and the defender initiated contact, 2 of the indicators. Had he of said try first time up, it would have remained.
We had some things go against us in the game
 
i Thought they made this black and white at the start of the year, then changed it after a backlash to allow interpretation.

No way would he of got anywhere near the action.

I agree with sterlo in it should be obstruction if he hasn't taken advantage of the decoy runner - which lawrence didn't
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Staff online

Members online

Total: 957 (members: 23, guests: 934)
Back
Top