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

Obstruction rule

Discussion in 'Rugby League Forum' started by nodd, May 1, 2007.

  1. nodd

    nodd Well-Known Member

    +105 /5
    Referees to Use More Judgement
    Tuesday, May 1, 2007 - 2:33 PM

    A phone hook up between NRL refereeing officials and Telstra Premiership club coaches has recommended that referees continue to strongly police the issue of ‘decoy runners’ but that there should be changes to the ‘interpretations’ used to adjudicate ‘obstructions’ in the Telstra Premiership.

    The conference call was unanimous in the view that ‘obstruction’ remained a challenging area for the game and one that would inevitably leave referees having to make subjective calls in determining whether defending teams are unfairly disadvantaged by the use of decoy runners.

    It was accepted that the referees needed to remain strong in monitoring the use of decoy runners, rather than risk opening a flood gate that would allow ‘blocking plays’ to become a feature of the game.

    Concerns around this area in the game last year led to a change in the interpretation of the rule which included situations in which players did not necessarily have to have made contact with the defensive line.

    Referees will now place greater emphasis on whether they believe a defender has been impeded or not.

    The coaches have in turn agreed that they need to accept the referee needs to be respected for having to make judgment calls in this area.

    “There was genuine attempt from all parties last year to be more prescriptive and to provide clearer guidelines about the mechanics of what could and could not lead to an obstruction call,” Referees Coach Robert Finch said today.

    “What we’ve agreed is that you can’t try and be too prescriptive and that coaches, players and fans have to accept that some things need to come down to the judgment of the referee or the video referee.

    “There may still be some debate in this area, but for referees the deciding factor will be whether they believe a player who was in a position to make a tackle was impeded.”

    The following amendments will be made to the 2007 Key Indicators:


    Point 1

    Current interpretation:

    “The ball carrier cannot run behind a decoy runner and gain an advantage regardless of any contact between the decoy and the defence”

    This interpretation has been eliminated and the current interpretation as per the Laws of the Game will be enforced:

    Section 2 Glossary –

    “Obstruction is an illegal act of impeding an opponent who does not have the ball.”

    Point 2

    Current interpretation

    “It is the responsibility of the decoy runner/s NOT to interfere with the defending team.”

    This interpretation remains with the following understanding:

    “Any attacking player/s who is in front of the ball must make every endeavour not to interfere with the defending team.”

    All other points set out in the 2007 Key Indicators remain unchanged.

    Important Note:

    In assessing whether obstruction has occurred the referee or video referee will make a judgment call as to whether any defender or defenders were prevented from getting to the ball carrier by the player or players from the attacking team who are in front of the ball.

    Source: NRL

    :clap: :clap: :clap:
  2. Fro

    Fro Well-Known Member

    +301 /0
    Hoo Farkin Ray, its about time this garbage stopped.
  3. clontaago

    clontaago Well-Known Member

    +170 /1
    Coaches need to alter their attacking slightly and the problem goes away. Scott Prince showed a perfect example the other day. He ran in front of 2 decoy runners who came back on the inside and he showed the ball to both of them. It has the same effect without the obstruction.
  4. Dan

    Dan Kim Jong Dan Staff Member Administrator 2016 Tipping Competitor 2017 Tipping Competitor

    +7,736 /120
    that sounds a bit better but doesnt give us the points back we could have had!
  5. Fluffy

    Fluffy Well-Known Member

    +5,625 /204
    It still sounds like it will reward a bad reads in defence as long as you are impeded ie if thier is contact but an improvement.
  6. ManlyBacker

    ManlyBacker Winging it Staff Member

    +972 /7
    Harrigan, as a referee co-ordinator, was vey clear a week ago that the rule should be interpreted that way, and then last weekend we get statements from the ref boss and bleating coaches that the rule is stamped as the 11th commandment and any decoys used results in a penalty. Bull****. Get your acts together you idiots as the game is being ruined.

Share This Page