Penalty Try?

[cochise]

Back with the “benefit of the doubt”
the ref would just motion that he didn’t have a clue and it would go upstairs .

I don't want the ref to have no clue as to what happened, I want them to be in position to make a call, after all that is how the game was refereed for 90 years before the video started getting in the way.

 

[hobbo1]

Back with the “benefit of the doubt”
the ref would just motion that he didn’t have a clue and it would go upstairs .

I don't want the ref to have no clue as to what happened, I want them to be in position to make a call, after all that is how the game was refereed for 90 years before the video started getting in the way.

Lol
They’re usually six inches away from the ball and they still don’t have a clue !

 

[cochise]

@Jessica I don't believe that the Thompson try was a fair try!

I'm happy for the Bunkers decision to be based on what the ref saw and only overturned if they can prove that he is wrong. I want the onfield refs making as many of the calls as possible and I don't believe the current system works, but neither did the BOD system. I want the video involved less which is why I'd go with a captains challenge. It also takes some pressure off the refs as if a try does not get sent to the bunker it will be the captains fault and not the refs.

I'm also a bit of an outlier when it comes to refs, I do not want 100% consistence across refs and games. I'd prefer to see refs use their personalities more when reffing, not all refs are game managers. Just because Bill Harrigon could ref with minimal penalties doesn't mean that works for every ref. I remember when I played many moons ago that the refs were different, you would know that you had a ref at the weekend and know his traits and quirks, such as being hard on the 10. You adjusted your behaviour for that ref.

 

[mike]

@mike It is officiated this way, a player isn't penalised until they actively influence the game, decoy runners that impact a defensive line after moving to an offside position are actively influencing play and should be penalised accordingly in my opinion.

I disagree with that assessment. How do you define actively influencing they play? If a decoy runner is in front of the player with the ball but it is a poor read by the defensive side to attempt to tackle that player, then that’s a defensive mistake not the attacking sides mistake. Under your interpretation the defender should never have to make that decision and I disagree. If however the decoy runner deliberately takes out a defender then yes a penalty every day of the week. Anyway we are off topic and will probably never agree.

 

[cochise]

@hobbo1 I agree but lets work on that, instead of giving up, I want less video interference, not more.

 

[cochise]

@mike The issue I have with not penalising the decoy runners is the block plays that usually result in the decoy runners impacting a defensive line are a blight on the game. At one point the majority of tries from all teams were scored from variations to the block play, all teams were playing the same style. Since the new interpretations I believe that the % of these types of plays has reduced leading to more variety in the game!

 

[cochise]

I would just like to state that the ideas and opinions I am expressing in this thread are my opinions and I am not saying my opinions are right. I have enjoyed the conversation and the ideas expressed by others.

 

[Harvey]

@voice_of_reason Once they contact a defender, a defender has to make an effort to move past them or make a decision based on an offside player then they have effected play!


Sorry, I disagree, there has to be discretion.
Take this example. I kick the ball through and a teammate batts it back to me. I'm a metre from the try line and he's now in front of me. I throw a 20m cutout to the winger who falls over the line from a metre out. While I'm throwing the pass, the fullback contacts the guy in front of me while heading towards the winger 20m away.
The fullback has zero chance of getting near the winger, but technically he has made contact with the attacker who is in front of me and obstructed him.
Should that be called back?
We should be encouraging referees to make decisions based on a knowledge of the game, not a technicality which was never intended to create the decisions we often see.

I would suggest that would not be pulled up as the player batting the ball back is contesting the ball and briefly in possession, rather than being a decoy who is taking no part in the play.

 

[Harvey]

What about The inconsistent application of “escorting” or blocking kick chasers?

I have heard some ridiculous explanations from commentators around why something is or is not a penalty.

 

[Moh]

@Harvey feel like we've had plenty of these go against us incorrectly this season.

 

[mike]

@mike The issue I have with not penalising the decoy runners is the block plays that usually result in the decoy runners impacting a defensive line are a blight on the game. At one point the majority of tries from all teams were scored from variations to the block play, all teams were playing the same style. Since the new interpretations I believe that the % of these types of plays has reduced leading to more variety in the game!

If the decoy actually prevents the defence from getting to the ball player then yes I agree, penalty. However many of those calls this year have been just bad defensive reads and decisions even to the point where the defence fakes interference to get a penalty. Or a penalty is given when the defender is off the play and in no way would they have ever gotten to the player with the ball. I understand what they are trying to prevent but they have gone over the top with the emphasis biased towards the defending side. It is way to technical in its interpretation and often spoils the flow of the game, waiting to replay after replay to make a decision on often just a technicality. As you can gather I really hate the obstruction rule and the way it is interpreted. It’s a blight on the game. And yes these are just my opinions as well.

 

[Geo]

@mike The issue I have with not penalising the decoy runners is the block plays that usually result in the decoy runners impacting a defensive line are a blight on the game. At one point the majority of tries from all teams were scored from variations to the block play, all teams were playing the same style. Since the new interpretations I believe that the % of these types of plays has reduced leading to more variety in the game!


If the decoy actually prevents the defence from getting to the ball player then yes I agree, penalty. However many of those calls this year have been just bad defensive reads and decisions even to the point where the defence fakes interference to get a penalty. Or a penalty is given when the defender is off the play and in no way would they have ever gotten to the player with the ball. I understand what they are trying to prevent but they have gone over the top with the emphasis biased towards the defending side. It is way to technical in its interpretation and often spoils the flow of the game, waiting to replay after replay to make a decision on often just a technicality. As you can gather I really hate the obstruction rule and the way it is interpreted. It’s a blight on the game. And yes these are just my opinions as well.

What he said..

 

[jadtiger]

@mike The issue I have with not penalising the decoy runners is the block plays that usually result in the decoy runners impacting a defensive line are a blight on the game. At one point the majority of tries from all teams were scored from variations to the block play, all teams were playing the same style. Since the new interpretations I believe that the % of these types of plays has reduced leading to more variety in the game!


If the decoy actually prevents the defence from getting to the ball player then yes I agree, penalty. However many of those calls this year have been just bad defensive reads and decisions even to the point where the defence fakes interference to get a penalty. Or a penalty is given when the defender is off the play and in no way would they have ever gotten to the player with the ball. I understand what they are trying to prevent but they have gone over the top with the emphasis biased towards the defending side. It is way to technical in its interpretation and often spoils the flow of the game, waiting to replay after replay to make a decision on often just a technicality. As you can gather I really hate the obstruction rule and the way it is interpreted. It’s a blight on the game. And yes these are just my opinions as well.

Mike i feel your opinion is shared by many football supporters at all clubs.The NRL under Greenie/Beattie seem to be going out their way to destroy the game and their support base with insane decisions and over technical rulings

 

[earl]

@Tigers_Tale I said earlier I don't get the issue with that call. It was the right call. Marsters completely stuffed up in his attempt at the kick and Matterson scored of that. That was a bad call.

 

[earl]

@mike I think it's good in that it makes it clear. As a lead decoy runner you cannot impede at all the defence. Put the onus on the players.

 

[TIGER]

If the ref makes a call there’s no need for a video ref.
The reason they send it to the video ref is because they don’t know, so what’s the point of the video ref hearing a call from the on field ref if they don’t know?
If the video sees it differently it doesn’t matter what the on field refs call was anyway so why bother hearing it?

The refs call 100% matters, the video ref has to prove that the refs call was wrong, if they can not prove it then the refs call stands. If we don't have the refs call, what do you suggest the video ref does if they can not prove if a try was scored or not? Guess?

Well the ref is guessing isn't he?
If the ref knew, then he wouldn't have to send it to the video ref, right?

The video ref makes a call based on the evidence available, he's got the benefit of multiple angles etc so he's much more equipped to make the correct decision than the ref is.
If there's no evidence of a try that is available then he can't award the try.

 

[cochise]

If there’s no evidence of a try that is available then he can’t award the try.

We had a situation years ago where that is exactly what was happening!

 

[mike]

@mike I think it's good in that it makes it clear. As a lead decoy runner you cannot impede at all the defence. Put the onus on the players.

Sorry but I don’t completely agree with that assessment. The difficulty is determining what you call impede the defence. You can’t impede someone if they are never going to be able to make the tackle in the first place, yet the attacking side often gets penalised for a technical off the ball infringement. I’ve also seen many times a defender deliberately run into a decoy runner hoping to get a penalty. Who should the onus be on then? Which player?

 

[cochise]

Who should the onus be on then? Which player?

The offside player!

 

[happy_tiger]

There is a simple solution

The decoy doesn't get mixed up in the line , and definitely makes sure they run right through the defensive line

If the decoy hits the gap ( as he should whether he is a decoy or not ) it becomes simple .....the defender makes the bad option

Blame idiotic decoy runners ......it isn't that hard ....don't get caught or stop in the defensive line