These Black and white rules are still grey

[XV-1]

Not true, according to Annusly who says the Bunker has discretionary powers, and he highlighted this in a decision in the Penrith V Brisbane match. In this latter instance the Bunker used --- wait for it -- common sense to rule a try because the player interfered with (Kapow, who takes a solid knock) would not have made the covering tackle.

I'm yet to be convinced that technology, in any sport, has improved the fairness for both players and fans. What it has done is taken away the power of the referee/umpire, complicated simple rules and delayed gratification.
Does anybody enjoy the thrill of watching a try, having it awarded by the ref, and then being totally deflated when some palooka in a box takes minutes to decide if your joy was premature or not?

Have you ever seen Chris Butler use his discretion on the field reffing or in tje bunker? He certainly wasn't going to start on Sunday.

Interesting that anusly said Tommy ran through the hole that the obstruction caused.
The hole was caused by #17 who chased Brooks out of the defensive line and Tommy ran thru that hole. Nobody mentioned that.

 

[HK_Eagle]

Apologies for the double post, but perhaps this post is more relevant in this thread…

Ok, now that I’ve had some time to cool my jets and reflect on the obstruction… I am actually ok with the decision (and it’s ongoing consistent interpretation).

IMO, whenever a lead runner takes out a defensive player, or stops in the defensive line, AND the player with the ball runs through that particular gap, then I agree it should be an automatic obstruction. As weak as Jake’s example was, it would still fall within this ruling (although I acknowledge there is some potential argument to say he stopped short of the line). The Panther example, which was shown by Annesley, would not qualify because the player with the ball did not run through the gap that involved the defensive player impeded.

Look, we all know that the Parra player was never going to get to Turbo. However, Jake did take the space that stopped the defensive player from moving across to attempt to defend that space. I think the concept is the right one. I could live with this rule applied consistently. As much as that non-try ruling stung. The onus would be on Jake in that situation to either pull up shorter or run through. That is something he could control, and I expect he and others will make an adjustment to ensure they never stop in the defensive line.

 

[Once Was Brissie Kid]

Since the NRL began in 1998 there have been some really dopey rule changes dreamt up, but this one could top them all. Without even the benefit of three schooners of beer, more than a dozen obvious flaws and inconsistences and just general stoopidity can be rattled off as why this idea should be binned.

The answer is if it is deliberate hit to the head, then send them off. If it is an accident caused by carlessness, give a penalty and let the match review mob deal with it.

The best answer to get consistency is stop using the sin bin for head high tackles. Which is the way it was for decades.

The radical rule proposal to bring consistency to sin-binnings for high tackles​

Players will be sent to the sin bin up to 15 minutes after committing a high tackle that forces an opponent out of a game with concussion under a radical proposal put forward by a handful of NRL coaches.
Referees still have the option to send a player straight from the field if they deem a high tackle could have caused serious injury.

But under the new proposal put forward by select coaches, the sin bin would only be used if the tackled player failed a head injury assessment. The player will remain on the field until the HIA results are made known.

Even if a player needed the maximum 15 minutes to undergo concussion testing protocols, and failed, play would be stopped and the offender given a ten-minute time-out.

The radical rule proposal to bring consistency to sin-binnings for high tackles

A group of NRL coaches have approached the governing body to propose a rule change that could see players stay on the field for up to 15 minutes after committing a high shot.

www.smh.com.au

 

[lsz]

To state the obvious but the last 10 min of the game could be a replay of the Manly v Sharks GF from the 70’s

 

[BOZO]

You have a dirty mind Bozo my man and that's fine, but I want common sense to be the decider over a text book every day of the week.
The point you make about "how" the team responds to it is 100% valid and I totally agree, right down to Manly having much to do with giving up that 14 - 0 lead and just maybe, this game is a lesson learned in many ways....depending how the players respond and show the backbone required to be the real deal in 2024 after this game, will be a true challenge.

I always like to get down and dirty feathered friend as that is my character
We all have different characters and see different things
Not all people have the same perception and this is why the common sense theory flys out the window .
In order to win we must defeat two opponents
1. The opposition
2. Adversity

Brilliance also needs Resilience to Prevail