Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Rugby League Forum' started by Napper, Apr 2, 2013.
The video ref now has discretion over contact initiated by a decoy runner on a try scoring play.
Does the on field ref have discretion too??? Would make little sense otherwise...
god here we go adding more gray to the process. how do you determine who initiates contact?
Just use some fu**ing common sense. If it's a fair dinkum shephard or taking out a defender in a postion to stop a try then penalise otherwise if it's good decoy play suckering defenders then let it go. Simple.
Instead of falling over, a decoy runner will now hit a defender and they will both point at eachother or put their arms in the air while looking at the ref. Primary school ****!
So back to square one ?? Stupid decision, Anderson needed to stay strong on this. The on field ref had the discretion, if in doubt he sent it upstairs where the video ref had no discretion. That was working IMO and sooner rather than later the decoy plays would have evolved to suit the rule. Sure you'd get some silly calls like the Cronk's, or even DCE's. BUT if you are going to run decoys into the defensive line than they are only used for one purpose, to confuse and interfere with the opposition defensive structure. If you get it even slightly wrong, and you are in front of the ball then you lose all benefit of the doubt IMO. The decoy/block play has destroyed RL, every team plays the same nowadays. How many block/decoy runners did Cliffy need ?? I was hoping this new interpretation would help bring back some creativity and ball playing. Seems we will just go back to more of the same. Disappointing.
I think this will work against us,. The video refs rarely give us any favours. At Least it was black and white before.
It wasn't working though was it? I take you back to Anasta making sure he got hit by the decoy runner even though he had literally no chance of stopping the DCE try. By getting hit, the black and white rule meant the try could not have been awarded. I am hoping this decision will be used only in these such instances.
Easy to milk now just get in the way of any player running toward the line and fall over the defense will gwt the penalty and soccer will creep into the game
It's not working because people are still adjusting to the interpretation. Anasta's play was smart, our play was stupid for sending a decoy into a positon where he compromised the try. Well the solution to that is don't use decoys and blocks. Don't get in front of the ball. The problem arises when we have runners going through well before the ball. Second man plays are run about 5m behind the blocks, of course these decoys are going to be well in truly mixing with the defensive line by then. The solution is run the plays in FRONT of your decoys, or get your halves to take it further to the line before they go out the back. If you get the defense to commit to the decoys while the ball is in very close proximity to them, then it's hard to mount a case of obstruction. In my mind that's called ball playing and vision. You can be sure of one thing, attack will evolve pretty quickly in response to a rule. I'm really not a fan of sending troops into the defensive lines for no other purpose then to cause disruption. Change the rule/interpretation and attack will change in response. I might be in the minority, but I don't like the sameness of the attacking structures throughout the NRL. Anyway, let's see what comes of this tweak to the rule. I can't help but think of Hodges try in the origin last year....that's what happens with discretion.
Just in time for us to play the 1-3 Bulldogs who mastered the art of dodgy decoys last year...
They shouldn't be changing the rules after the season begins! Games may or may not have been decided on the current (pre today) rules.That's like the stewards at the Melbourne Cup changing the interference rules at the 2000 meter mark.Leave it as it bloody is.As C&C stated,offensive lines WILL adjust.
This is now becoming a week by week proposition.
I thought the same thing No conspiracy, but the timing sucks.
Agree completely. It was black and white before and now it'll get stuffed up by different peoples interpretations. Every one hated the rule the way it was last week but no one was willing to offer an opinion on how to better it. Does anyone have any suggestions on how it should work with out leaving it up to the discretion of different referees?
This rule change will cause a massive problem as people will have different opinion regarding any contact being made. Make it Black and White and you will not have any problems.
If the coaches were ALL complaining - along with the media - then it is a good thing that something was done. If nothing was done there would have been continued complaints and anger. But something was done to help rectify the outcry... and coaches and players are smart enough (except for She-Rex) to manipulate any new rule and try to out-smart it. Whatever new variance of any new rule, or adaptation of an old rule, then the players are all onto it and trying to scheme their way around it to their own advantage. Just like new tax systems and laws, people hate the adaptations and where loop holes are closed. But they soon find a new way of dodging the system. That is the beautiful thing about life, human nature, and the great game of rugby league :^) [hr] I don't think it is as easy as making anything grey into black or white. The only way of it becoming black or white is if decoy runners are banned altogether.
Last season Melbourne were repeatedly sending decoy runners into the outside shoulder of the inside potential tacklers. The ball was then spun wider. It was clearly an intended ploy to weaken the cover defence. And it was repeatedly let go by the officials - the argument was that the cover defender wouldn't have stopped the try. The argument that the player taken out wouldn't have stopped the try is a weak one. Take out cover defenders, and you compromise the entire defensive structure, not just the inner one. The prime responsibility for avoiding collisions and shepherds needs to be on the attacking player, and on the attacking team. If defending players are deliberately causing the interference, then discretion to allow the try may be workable. But the core responsibility needs to be with the attacking team, and the BOD with the defending team.
Well said Rex. The problem with discretion is that at some point the discretionary power of the video ref will be questioned and controversy will follow. Let's take the DCE/Anasta situation. I think we can all agree that it was probably a ridiculous decision in that it was unlikely Anasta would have gotten to DCE to prevent the try. Now if we give the video ref discretion there, let's look at the likely scenario. Anasta is "interfered" with 15m from where try is scored, no drama....TRY. What's that, interference was 12m from try ? ......still OK ?...yes TRY. 8m ? 6m? 5m? 4m ? wait...4m is too close... NO TRY. What about 4.5m ? Oh it wasn't Braith Anasta this time it was Blake Ayshford ? he's quicker isn't he ?....better make it 5m now. We are back to where we were last year, controversial tries every week. I have no problems with discretion resting with on field refs, and perhaps they erred by sending it upstairs in the first place. But as soon as you try and use discretion on a rule like this when looking at slow mo replays ad infinitum, you lose touch with the spirit of the rule.
I wonder if discretion will involve what shoulder the decoy runs at? For example, contact with the inside shoulder should really be seen as less of an obstruction then contact with the outside shoulder. Whether the defender holds his ground or moves to contact the decoy. I liked it the way it was last week but if there is going to be discretion then i think they've got it as right as it can be. Any contact will be sent upstairs and dealt with................hopefully.