Pearce Try....Obstruction?

User avatar
black and white tiger
Posts: 568
Joined: Sun 11 Sep, 2011 10:39 am
Location: Bays 11_13_20

Re: Pearce Try....Obstruction?

Post by black and white tiger » Mon 27 Aug, 2012 10:44 pm

Melbourne were denied a try against Cronulla in tonight's game for an obstruction. Just goes to show you, they can get it right if they try hard enough.
Poor video ref must a been s*** himself. "what do I do, I forgot to watch Bill's new masterclass video. Bugger it, I'll close my eyes and hope for the best"

Posts: 4619
Joined: Tue 21 Sep, 2010 2:46 pm
Location: Concord

Post by Goose » Tue 28 Aug, 2012 5:17 pm

Im glad the game wasn't closer, because i was certain it was an obstruction.

3 times this year we have had tries scored with seemingly obvious obstructions missed and all were conceded on the monday, the only important one was in the Doggies game, but still, frustrating.

User avatar
Paris Cobbs
Posts: 915
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 3:39 pm
Location: Paris, France.

Post by Paris Cobbs » Tue 28 Aug, 2012 5:34 pm

A clear case of obstruction. A disgrace considering it happened the previous week as well and Harrigan produced a comprehensive video on the subject.

And it did matter, because for and against is so important.
Cheering for the mighty Wests Tigers, all the way from France.

User avatar
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun 02 Aug, 2009 9:43 pm
Location: Dulwich Hill

Post by skywalka » Tue 28 Aug, 2012 8:03 pm

Forward pass (I had a great view of it) so shouldn't have been a try. Touchy was right there but pussed out.

Mini was running a support play which he was entitled to do. But he couldn't disappear into thin air. The forward pass made it look like more of a decoy runner type play. Some defenders didn't realise Mini didn't get the ball and committed to tackling him. If the pass wasn't forward then the defenders wouldn't have thought Mini might get the ball. They would have gone straight for Pearce so the try would have been stopped.

If you watch carefully there was a chance Mini touched the ball. If he touched it first then he couldn't be classified as a decoy. If he didn't touch it first then it was accidental offside.

Pearce changed direction behind Mini but probably would have done so even if Mini wasn't there.

When things happen in broken play you tend to give the benefit of the doubt more often.

Not as clear cut as last weeks obstruction.

Post Reply