1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Official Excuses

Discussion in 'Rugby League Forum' started by Chip and Chase, Aug 20, 2012.

  1. Chip and Chase

    Chip and Chase True Supporter Staff Member Administrator Premium Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    12,810
    3,170
    Ratings:
    +6,281 / 44
    Billy has to choke on a few this week. Seems everyone in the world was right about the Bulldogs obstruction play on Friday EXCEPT the 3 morons paid to get it right. Looks like they also got the Storm try wrong.... who would have thought ?

    Billy also clears up the obstruction rule for us all, how nice of him.
    [hr]


    Referees co-coach Bill Harrigan has conceded a controversial try awarded to Jonathan Wright in the Bulldogs 23-22 win over the Wests Tigers on Friday night should not have been awarded.

    Harrigan revealed to NRL.com in a filmed edition of the Official View that he had taken the extraordinary step of organising a two-hour meeting with his whistle-blowers to clarify the obstruction interpretation.

    Harrigan said the 74th minute try awarded in the Friday night blockbuster should have been disallowed due to the Bulldogs gaining an unfair advantage from an obstruction involving forward Frank Pritchard.

    “Unfortunately we got this decision wrong,” Harrigan told NRL.com on Monday.

    “What you can’t do is when the decoy player runs into the defensive line, you can’t run behind him and then gain an advantage by a run, pass or kick.

    “[Frank] Pritchard runs behind the decoy runner and Liam Fulton is tackling him, but Pritchard actually offloads the ball. He has gained an advantage by the pass and that is why the try shouldn’t have been allowed.”

    Harrigan is confident the two-hour meeting with the referees at their headquarters in Homebush will have an immediate impact on the quality and consistency of the decision making process.

    “I’m not happy that I have had to come out at this point in the season and admit that we have made mistakes,” he said.

    “Today I have had all the referees and all the video referees sit down and we have gone through a lot of our obstruction calls, we’ve worked hard to get clarity in what we are doing.

    “There will be no confusion when we go into round 25 and 26 and into the semi-finals between the referees and video referees.

    “We all know what we are doing, that was the whole objective of today, that we do all the work so that when we walked out of that room today, we all knew exactly where we stood when it comes to block runners and obstruction plays.”

    While conceding the Bulldogs were wrongfully awarded a try, Harrigan was adamant the try awarded to the Gold Coast Titans in their game against the Eels at Skilled Park on Sunday afternoon was the correct decision.

    “That was given a try and that is the correct decision,” he said.

    “You can run behind your own player in some instances, in this case, by the time the ball carrier runs around and crosses the path of the decoy player, the decoy runner is already through the defensive line.

    “There is no offence being committed because the defensive line is in front of the ball-carrier and the decoy runner has already gone through and is out of the way. No defender is being impeded in any way and that is why he is allowed to run on and set-up the try.”

    There has been a lot of talk about the obstruction rule in recent weeks with players, coaches and media all speculating about rule interpretations.

    NRL.com sat down with Harrigan to get a definitive answer on the controversial issue.

    “The challenging part about the obstruction play and the thing that is probably causing most fans difficulty in understanding the block play or the decoy player, is when a player runs behind his own player,” Harrigan starts.

    “The thing you have to look for… when he runs behind his own player, does he gain an advantage from that. When he is directly behind his own player, does it give the defence any opportunity to adjust and stay in the defensive line.

    “If it doesn’t give the defensive line any time to adjust and then he takes an advantage via a run, pass or kick, then that will be pulled up as an obstruction.”

    The main points Harrigan covered in his NRL.com interview:

    - Bulldogs winger Jonathan Wright’s try should not have been awarded.

    - Wests Tigers hooker Robbie Farah was held up.

    - The try awarded to Titans’ Steve Michaels was the correct decision.

    - Melbourne Storm was incorrectly awarded a benefit-of-the-doubt try in their match against the Broncos on Friday night – the decision should have been a knock-on against Sisa Waqa.

    What to look for when determining an obstruction:

    - Is there depth on the pass?

    - Is there an inside/outside runner?

    - Is there interference with the defence?

    - Did you gain an advantage by running behind the player with a run, pass or kick?


    You can see the video here

    http://www.nrl.com/official-view-obstruction-rule-explained/tabid/10874/newsid/69382/default.aspx
     
  2. Chip and Chase

    Chip and Chase True Supporter Staff Member Administrator Premium Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    12,810
    3,170
    Ratings:
    +6,281 / 44
    Billy has to choke on a few this week. Seems everyone in the world was right about the Bulldogs obstruction play on Friday EXCEPT the 3 morons paid to get it right. Looks like they also got the Storm try wrong.... who would have thought ?

    Billy also clears up the obstruction rule for us all, how nice of him.
    [hr]


    Referees co-coach Bill Harrigan has conceded a controversial try awarded to Jonathan Wright in the Bulldogs 23-22 win over the Wests Tigers on Friday night should not have been awarded.

    Harrigan revealed to NRL.com in a filmed edition of the Official View that he had taken the extraordinary step of organising a two-hour meeting with his whistle-blowers to clarify the obstruction interpretation.

    Harrigan said the 74th minute try awarded in the Friday night blockbuster should have been disallowed due to the Bulldogs gaining an unfair advantage from an obstruction involving forward Frank Pritchard.

    “Unfortunately we got this decision wrong,” Harrigan told NRL.com on Monday.

    “What you can’t do is when the decoy player runs into the defensive line, you can’t run behind him and then gain an advantage by a run, pass or kick.

    “[Frank] Pritchard runs behind the decoy runner and Liam Fulton is tackling him, but Pritchard actually offloads the ball. He has gained an advantage by the pass and that is why the try shouldn’t have been allowed.”

    Harrigan is confident the two-hour meeting with the referees at their headquarters in Homebush will have an immediate impact on the quality and consistency of the decision making process.

    “I’m not happy that I have had to come out at this point in the season and admit that we have made mistakes,” he said.

    “Today I have had all the referees and all the video referees sit down and we have gone through a lot of our obstruction calls, we’ve worked hard to get clarity in what we are doing.

    “There will be no confusion when we go into round 25 and 26 and into the semi-finals between the referees and video referees.

    “We all know what we are doing, that was the whole objective of today, that we do all the work so that when we walked out of that room today, we all knew exactly where we stood when it comes to block runners and obstruction plays.”

    While conceding the Bulldogs were wrongfully awarded a try, Harrigan was adamant the try awarded to the Gold Coast Titans in their game against the Eels at Skilled Park on Sunday afternoon was the correct decision.

    “That was given a try and that is the correct decision,” he said.

    “You can run behind your own player in some instances, in this case, by the time the ball carrier runs around and crosses the path of the decoy player, the decoy runner is already through the defensive line.

    “There is no offence being committed because the defensive line is in front of the ball-carrier and the decoy runner has already gone through and is out of the way. No defender is being impeded in any way and that is why he is allowed to run on and set-up the try.”

    There has been a lot of talk about the obstruction rule in recent weeks with players, coaches and media all speculating about rule interpretations.

    NRL.com sat down with Harrigan to get a definitive answer on the controversial issue.

    “The challenging part about the obstruction play and the thing that is probably causing most fans difficulty in understanding the block play or the decoy player, is when a player runs behind his own player,” Harrigan starts.

    “The thing you have to look for… when he runs behind his own player, does he gain an advantage from that. When he is directly behind his own player, does it give the defence any opportunity to adjust and stay in the defensive line.

    “If it doesn’t give the defensive line any time to adjust and then he takes an advantage via a run, pass or kick, then that will be pulled up as an obstruction.”

    The main points Harrigan covered in his NRL.com interview:

    - Bulldogs winger Jonathan Wright’s try should not have been awarded.

    - Wests Tigers hooker Robbie Farah was held up.

    - The try awarded to Titans’ Steve Michaels was the correct decision.

    - Melbourne Storm was incorrectly awarded a benefit-of-the-doubt try in their match against the Broncos on Friday night – the decision should have been a knock-on against Sisa Waqa.

    What to look for when determining an obstruction:

    - Is there depth on the pass?

    - Is there an inside/outside runner?

    - Is there interference with the defence?

    - Did you gain an advantage by running behind the player with a run, pass or kick?


    You can see the video here

    http://www.nrl.com/official-view-obstruction-rule-explained/tabid/10874/newsid/69382/default.aspx
     
  3. MWSE

    MWSE Well-Known Member

    1,072
    257
    Ratings:
    +335 / 2
    I wonder if the dogs will try and more ben barba out the back plays this week....
     
  4. MWSE

    MWSE Well-Known Member

    1,072
    257
    Ratings:
    +335 / 2
    I wonder if the dogs will try and more ben barba out the back plays this week....
     
  5. Dan

    Dan Administrator Staff Member Administrator 2016 Tipping Competitor

    32,369
    3,609
    Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Ratings:
    +5,460 / 74
    It could completely screw up their season
     
  6. Dan

    Dan Administrator Staff Member Administrator 2016 Tipping Competitor

    32,369
    3,609
    Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Ratings:
    +5,460 / 74
    It could completely screw up their season
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Mark from Brisbane

    Mark from Brisbane Living the dream Premium Member

    16,316
    5,338
    Brisbane
    Ratings:
    +12,693 / 256
    Typical De$ Ha$ler play, if they come down hard on this it could stop a few Dog$ try's as they play that move a lot
     
  8. Mark from Brisbane

    Mark from Brisbane Living the dream Premium Member

    16,316
    5,338
    Brisbane
    Ratings:
    +12,693 / 256
    Typical De$ Ha$ler play, if they come down hard on this it could stop a few Dog$ try's as they play that move a lot
     
  9. ManlyBacker

    ManlyBacker Winging it Staff Member

    11,596
    843
    Ratings:
    +971 / 7
    The refs have stuffed up the obstruction calls for 3 years now. What Bill has said in that video is spot on. As a RL follower for many decades it is usually obvious when it should be penalised.

    The main question refs have always had to ask is did the attacking team gain an advantage through the defensive line being impeded. The other aspect is whether a decoy runner clearly interferes with a defender being able to make a tackle. The grey area and why the ref has discretion is the 'depth on a pass' and as many teams play it close to the line it will probably always be a hard call.

    I'm not a fan of Bill's check boxes as that is the reason why the video ref has made so many mistakes. If it looks right then it usually is.
     
  10. ManlyBacker

    ManlyBacker Winging it Staff Member

    11,596
    843
    Ratings:
    +971 / 7
    The refs have stuffed up the obstruction calls for 3 years now. What Bill has said in that video is spot on. As a RL follower for many decades it is usually obvious when it should be penalised.

    The main question refs have always had to ask is did the attacking team gain an advantage through the defensive line being impeded. The other aspect is whether a decoy runner clearly interferes with a defender being able to make a tackle. The grey area and why the ref has discretion is the 'depth on a pass' and as many teams play it close to the line it will probably always be a hard call.

    I'm not a fan of Bill's check boxes as that is the reason why the video ref has made so many mistakes. If it looks right then it usually is.
     
  11. EagleRock40

    EagleRock40 Well-Known Member

    972
    141
    Ourimbah, New South Wales
    Ratings:
    +211 / 4
    There was a Jonathan Thurston try awarded last night where he ran behind his own player, which I thought was clearly an obstruction yet they gave the try. I'm still confused with the ruling, no doubt we'll see more between now and the GF
     
  12. EagleRock40

    EagleRock40 Well-Known Member

    972
    141
    Ourimbah, New South Wales
    Ratings:
    +211 / 4
    There was a Jonathan Thurston try awarded last night where he ran behind his own player, which I thought was clearly an obstruction yet they gave the try. I'm still confused with the ruling, no doubt we'll see more between now and the GF
     
  13. WAMF

    WAMF Well-Known Member

    3,201
    389
    Perth
    Ratings:
    +408 / 0
    The fair way to resolve this would be to take the 2 points away from the dogs and award them to the Tigers.
     
  14. WAMF

    WAMF Well-Known Member

    3,201
    389
    Perth
    Ratings:
    +408 / 0
    The fair way to resolve this would be to take the 2 points away from the dogs and award them to the Tigers.
     
  15. Dan

    Dan Administrator Staff Member Administrator 2016 Tipping Competitor

    32,369
    3,609
    Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Ratings:
    +5,460 / 74
    I don't see what's so hard about it

    You run behind a player, its obstructon, penalise it every time and its solved
     
  16. Dan

    Dan Administrator Staff Member Administrator 2016 Tipping Competitor

    32,369
    3,609
    Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Ratings:
    +5,460 / 74
    I don't see what's so hard about it

    You run behind a player, its obstructon, penalise it every time and its solved
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. globaleagle

    globaleagle Où est mon chapeau Premium Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    11,774
    4,704
    Ratings:
    +7,776 / 58
    So tooves comments after the nth qld game were correct then.

    Looks like he wasn't just being a whinger. (too late, I've been ser8'd!!)

    Guess I'll check all those other forums and read their apologies.
     
  18. globaleagle

    globaleagle Où est mon chapeau Premium Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    11,774
    4,704
    Ratings:
    +7,776 / 58
    So tooves comments after the nth qld game were correct then.

    Looks like he wasn't just being a whinger. (too late, I've been ser8'd!!)

    Guess I'll check all those other forums and read their apologies.
     
  19. SeaEagleRock8

    SeaEagleRock8 Sea Eagle Lach Staff Member Premium Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    12,593
    3,521
    Ratings:
    +6,792 / 122
    Definitely not, he started as halfback but ended up playing a lot at hooker.
     
  20. SeaEagleRock8

    SeaEagleRock8 Sea Eagle Lach Staff Member Premium Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    12,593
    3,521
    Ratings:
    +6,792 / 122
    Definitely not, he started as halfback but ended up playing a lot at hooker.
     

Share This Page