I think that game was one tat we needed confidence from the beginning that the referees didn't allow with their unpredictable calling. Then when we score a legitimate try that may spark some enthusiasm form the boys, the video ref makes a clinger, How far away from the ball does the interference rule have to be. I can see players running into attacking players for any reason if they can get away with it.
That Try that wasn't
- Thread starter hugh1954
- Start date
southerntiger
New member
@hugh1954 said:
I thought the call was correct. Stupid play by Bodene.
_Posted using RoarFEED V.4_
Love_the_WestsTigers
Well-known member
i was upset at the time but then realised we benefited from a similar call last week.(Easter Monday)
Ours was more of a try but then again ….................
Ours was more of a try but then again ….................
BlackandGoldForever
New member
I am over the rule toss a coin is what they do for it now it's a joke it's ruining the game
MacDougall
New member
Yeah I preferred it in recent years. That they have somehow made it worse is ridiculous.
happy_tiger
Well-known member
@southerntiger said:
No try totally agree
It can't be that hard to run through the line , not stop or make contact with the defender
Based on last week, I would say it was a fair call today. However, I hate the obstruction rule. I don't remember hearing this much conjecture about the obstruction 10-15 years ago. They should get rid of this rule where if a guy is taken out, it is no try, forget about this inside shoulder business and just wipe the slate clean. Place it at the discretion of the referees with one simple question. If someone has been taken out, would he of affected the play or not?
Also, with two referees on the field, we shouldn't even need to go to the video ref to determine what is an obstruction or not. The pocket referee should look at the play, have a feel for the game and be able to determine if an obstruction has occurred or not. He would have the perfect view for it.
Also, with two referees on the field, we shouldn't even need to go to the video ref to determine what is an obstruction or not. The pocket referee should look at the play, have a feel for the game and be able to determine if an obstruction has occurred or not. He would have the perfect view for it.
If the one involving Brooks was no try last week, this weeks call is definitely correct.
Juro
Well-known member
The main difference I saw between this try and the one in the Parra game was the distance between where the collision occurred and where the ball went afterwards. I know I am biased but I thought our one was a fair try…
People are asking for some consistency in this area; however I think that the two disallowed tries in the last two Tigers games are a display of consistency.
If the decoy runner comes in contact with a defender, that is obstruction.
Some people are talking about proximity and “would the defender have stopped the try”. How grey is that?
Define proximity, does proximity change when a slow forward is obstructed compared to a fast back? How do we know if the defender would have stopped the try? As soon as the inside defender is taken out, the whole dynamic of the defensive structure changes.
Obstruction is a contentious rule, however it is clear that the decoy runner either stops before the defensive line or runs cleanly through it.
If the decoy runner comes in contact with a defender, that is obstruction.
Some people are talking about proximity and “would the defender have stopped the try”. How grey is that?
Define proximity, does proximity change when a slow forward is obstructed compared to a fast back? How do we know if the defender would have stopped the try? As soon as the inside defender is taken out, the whole dynamic of the defensive structure changes.
Obstruction is a contentious rule, however it is clear that the decoy runner either stops before the defensive line or runs cleanly through it.
happy_tiger
Well-known member
@mremedy said:
As long as defenders aren't purposely hitting defenders and dropping like a stone I have no issues with that Mremedy
weststigers
Well-known member
Obstruction rule is an easy one to fix.
The impeded player should be judged on 1 thing:
1\. Was the defender bracing himself for contact after a bad read or was he taken out by blatant foul play?
* I.e. was the defender facing and running towards the tryscorer to genuinely stop the try and then been taken out? Or has he made a bad read and stood his ground?
In the case of the Simona try, Sezer stood his ground and braced for contact knowing that he had nothing to lose. He was never going to stop that try, but he had every chance of getting it disallowed by standing his ground. Sezer wasn't even looking at Simona or running towards him to stop that try - a poor rule.
Agree with Happy in that proximity should be defined clearly - if you base it on being able to run 100m in 10 seconds (to give the defending team a reasonable benefit), the player then theoretically can only run 10m per 1 second…the maths can easily be worked out from the video footage to see whether Sezer could have played a part.
The impeded player should be judged on 1 thing:
1\. Was the defender bracing himself for contact after a bad read or was he taken out by blatant foul play?
* I.e. was the defender facing and running towards the tryscorer to genuinely stop the try and then been taken out? Or has he made a bad read and stood his ground?
In the case of the Simona try, Sezer stood his ground and braced for contact knowing that he had nothing to lose. He was never going to stop that try, but he had every chance of getting it disallowed by standing his ground. Sezer wasn't even looking at Simona or running towards him to stop that try - a poor rule.
Agree with Happy in that proximity should be defined clearly - if you base it on being able to run 100m in 10 seconds (to give the defending team a reasonable benefit), the player then theoretically can only run 10m per 1 second…the maths can easily be worked out from the video footage to see whether Sezer could have played a part.
