Obstruction Rule

  • We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.

MK Eagle

Bencher
Have a bad feeling this grey area will cost a team in the finals & hope its not Manly.....
Hiku strolled through for his 2nd try & was called back immediately without the usual 12 replays with the video ref. On a closer inspection the defender clearly makes a bad read & is actually the one who makes contact with the option runner.
The rules are designed to stop the attacking players taking out the defender but the common sense rule needs to be applied when the defender makes a poor choice & hits the wrong man.
Earlier Manly ran this play a little better with the option runners making an unders line & made sure they kept running through, clear of any defenders.
I realise yesterday was a comfortable win but if we were down by 2 points & that was our last attacking raid there would have been plenty more said about this incident.
 
Agreed MK Eagle.

Even the Raiders try from the scrum just before halftime saw one of their players run behind a team mate. But no seemed to care. Other times the referees this year have penalised it. I have no idea what the rules are.

Funny how last week Anderson said not binning Cronk last week for a professional foul was the right call, but then this weekend Manly and the Eels had players binned for far less.
 
99 out of 100 times the video ref will look at these & by the same token only get 70% right.
Thing is why was there not a 2nd viewing of the Hiku try??
Watch the replay & its a straight out poor defensive read allowing Hiku an easy passage to the line.
 
It almost seemed as if 30 nil in 30 mins would have been an unacceptable situation, and everything was done to prevent this occuring. On the other hand, it was fine for melbourne to rack up a big one. Conspiracy to get their for and against better than ours??
 
Yeah its a frustrating situation with fines for speaking the truth, but all the ridiculous things the average punter can see clearly on the 1st replay they look at every angle 8 times. Then when its debatable they dont look once???? :huh:
This play is almost impossible to defend when executed perfectly at speed & Manly in particular, will run this play in the big games.
Some of these finals will come down to 6 or less points so its important to get these calls right.
 
I see Anderson defended them not giving a penalty at the end of the Titans vs Warriors game. He said the Warriors player kicked out with his feet to kick the ball away, but it wasn't a penalty as he missed the Titans player's head! I've slowed down that incident and you can see the Warriors player's boot connect with the Titan's player in the wrist. If that was a Sydney club battling for a top 8 spot that lost a game on the final call there would be screams everywhere in the media.

Anderson has it seems to me sided with the referees in big calls most of the season.


http://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/referees-boss-daniel-anderson-defends-crucial-call-in-gold-coast-verses-warriors-match/story-fndujljl-1226703777596

Referees boss Daniel Anderson defends crucial call in Gold Coast verses Warriors match
Todd Balym
The Courier-Mail

REFEREES boss Daniel Anderson has defended a crucial decision the Gold Coast believe cost them the game against the Warriors by claiming his men can’t penalise someone for missing.

Titans coach John Cartwright slammed the referees after his men were beaten 24-22 by the Warriors, upset that Thomas Leuluai was not penalised for leading with his feet when Kevin Gordon almost scored a match-winner in the dying seconds.

The Titans claim Gordon was knocked out by the incident, but video referees Steve Chiddy and Neil Wharton refused to rule a penalty that could have at least given the Gold Coast a chance to send the game into extra time.

Anderson said the video referees made the right call as Leuluai was within his rights to use his feet in an attempt to boot the ball out because the players were contesting the possession.

While sliding in with your feet is illegal to stop a player from scoring a try, the Warriors playmaker was entitled to attempt to boot the ball clear until Gordon had taken clean possession.

But Anderson insisted Leuluai’s feet did not make contact with Gordon’s head anyway.

"There was no contact," Anderson said.

"I’ve got to have a look to see if it is even sliding. The chances are the ball was still available so Thomas Leuluai was in the process of kicking the ball out of play.

"As soon as Kevin Gordon grabs it he can’t make contact with his boot on him, but there is no contact and that is why there is no penalty.

"It’s the same as any action in the game, if you miss there is no adjudication on missing."

Anderson said there was just "inches" in the referees ruling it a try or a penalty, but ultimately made the right call in a high-pressure moment.

"It was on the line and it was very close to being a try," he said.

"There is a lot at stake at the moment in regard to the decisions by the officials and they’ve been pretty solid this weekend.

"I thought that process there with the Titans was a very good process and they followed it to the letter and made the correct adjudication as well."
 
there was an obstruction try in the rabbits dogs game that was awarded that was almost identical
 
Apologies for resurrecting the obstruction rule debate/disaster.

Today's game Dragons v Warriors. Two disasterous obstruction calls. The second was disgraceful and caused a 12 point turn around.

I can't fix the rule/interpretation/consistency but i believe an improvement in the game just to start would be to remove the penalty for obstruction.

It shouldn't be penalised. Call obstruction (wrong most of the time anyway) then ok play the ball from the current tackle number.
 
I love the new Black and White rule, its simple, run though the line or stop before it. I hate when refs have to apply common sense interpretations as they invariably get them wrong.
 
Have a bad feeling this grey area will cost a team in the finals & hope its not Manly.....
Hiku strolled through for his 2nd try & was called back immediately without the usual 12 replays with the video ref. On a closer inspection the defender clearly makes a bad read & is actually the one who makes contact with the option runner.
The rules are designed to stop the attacking players taking out the defender but the common sense rule needs to be applied when the defender makes a poor choice & hits the wrong man.
Earlier Manly ran this play a little better with the option runners making an unders line & made sure they kept running through, clear of any defenders.
I realise yesterday was a comfortable win but if we were down by 2 points & that was our last attacking raid there would have been plenty more said about this incident.

One of the cowboys tries involved an inside pass where the ball runner then ran behind the player who had passed it and continued the sweeping play.

Last week a try was called back for the exact same thing (Souths I think) and the ref's explanation was you cannot run behind your own player as that is a black and white instant obstruction. 7 days and another rule change.
 
Team P W L PD Pts
3 3 0 48 6
4 3 1 28 6
3 2 1 10 6
4 2 2 39 4
3 2 1 28 4
3 2 1 15 4
3 2 1 14 4
2 1 1 13 4
2 1 1 6 4
3 2 1 -3 4
3 1 2 0 2
3 1 2 -5 2
3 1 2 -15 2
3 1 2 -22 2
3 1 2 -36 2
2 0 2 -56 2
3 0 3 -64 0
Back
Top Bottom