Yet more "Official View" rubbish

[simon64]

Harrigan is a douche.

That's a compliment in my book. Have you ever seen a more arrogant narcissistic w*nker ?

As Daniel said, the Stewart decision was touch and go. At least there was some contact between Matai and Tater-head. But Hall just fell over and wasn't even in the same postcode.

I can live with the error (because we still won). But the flat refusal to admit the error is just typical Harrigan.

 

[simon64]

Harrigan is a douche.

That's a compliment in my book. Have you ever seen a more arrogant narcissistic w*nker ?

As Daniel said, the Stewart decision was touch and go. At least there was some contact between Matai and Tater-head. But Hall just fell over and wasn't even in the same postcode.

I can live with the error (because we still won). But the flat refusal to admit the error is just typical Harrigan.

 

[Roger]

Reading the whole explanation from Harrigan on all incidents would have you believe that the refs didnt make any mistakes last weekend even though everyone else can see it, something has to change or the grand final will be decided by the refs

 

[Roger]

Reading the whole explanation from Harrigan on all incidents would have you believe that the refs didnt make any mistakes last weekend even though everyone else can see it, something has to change or the grand final will be decided by the refs

 

[Shoe1]

Absolute twaddle on the hall call from the referees' boss. His time is well and truly up. It's propaganda spin worthy of a dictatorship like north Korea.

 

[Shoe1]

Absolute twaddle on the hall call from the referees' boss. His time is well and truly up. It's propaganda spin worthy of a dictatorship like north Korea.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

So - does anyone know the actual wording of the obstruction rule as it currently stands?

Because if the refs are getting it right, then our players need to understand the rule better.

If on the other hand the refs are getting it wrong … But it’s a bit hard to say without knowing exactly what the rule says.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

So - does anyone know the actual wording of the obstruction rule as it currently stands?

Because if the refs are getting it right, then our players need to understand the rule better.

If on the other hand the refs are getting it wrong … But it’s a bit hard to say without knowing exactly what the rule says.

 

[Dan]

This is the NSWRL rule book, I assume it is the same

OBSTRUCTION –



a) It is the responsibility of the decoy runner/s not to interfere with the defending team.

b) The ball runner cannot run behind his own team and gain an advantage.

c) A sweep player may receive the ball on the inside of a block runner as long as there is depth on the pass to him. It there is no depth he needs to receive the ball on the outside of the block runner.

d) Defensive decisions that commit defenders to decoy runners will not be considered obstruction.

e) Attacking players who loiter next to the play the ball can be interpreted as obstructing the defending team.

f) In the process of scoring a try an attacking player dives through or into the legs of the player who has played the ball a penalty will be awarded to the defending team. This action will be interpreted as obstruction.

g) If in the opinion of the referee/video referee the play had no effect on the scoring of the try the try will be awarded.

 

[Dan]

This is the NSWRL rule book, I assume it is the same

OBSTRUCTION –



a) It is the responsibility of the decoy runner/s not to interfere with the defending team.

b) The ball runner cannot run behind his own team and gain an advantage.

c) A sweep player may receive the ball on the inside of a block runner as long as there is depth on the pass to him. It there is no depth he needs to receive the ball on the outside of the block runner.

d) Defensive decisions that commit defenders to decoy runners will not be considered obstruction.

e) Attacking players who loiter next to the play the ball can be interpreted as obstructing the defending team.

f) In the process of scoring a try an attacking player dives through or into the legs of the player who has played the ball a penalty will be awarded to the defending team. This action will be interpreted as obstruction.

g) If in the opinion of the referee/video referee the play had no effect on the scoring of the try the try will be awarded.

 

[Dan]

Here are few of the rule books

2011 - http://www.arldevelopment.com.au/fileadmin/document_downloads/International__Laws_of_the_Game_2011_non_linked.pdf

2012 - http://www.arldevelopment.com.au/fileadmin/document_downloads/ARL_Rules_book_2012_-_FINAL_INT_LAWS.pdf

 

[Dan]

Here are few of the rule books

2011 - http://www.arldevelopment.com.au/fileadmin/document_downloads/International__Laws_of_the_Game_2011_non_linked.pdf

2012 - http://www.arldevelopment.com.au/fileadmin/document_downloads/ARL_Rules_book_2012_-_FINAL_INT_LAWS.pdf

 

[Jethro]

This is the NSWRL rule book, I assume it is the same

OBSTRUCTION –



a) It is the responsibility of the decoy runner/s not to interfere with the defending team.

b) The ball runner cannot run behind his own team and gain an advantage.

c) A sweep player may receive the ball on the inside of a block runner as long as there is depth on the pass to him. It there is no depth he needs to receive the ball on the outside of the block runner.

d) Defensive decisions that commit defenders to decoy runners will not be considered obstruction.

e) Attacking players who loiter next to the play the ball can be interpreted as obstructing the defending team.

f) In the process of scoring a try an attacking player dives through or into the legs of the player who has played the ball a penalty will be awarded to the defending team. This action will be interpreted as obstruction.

g) If in the opinion of the referee/video referee the play had no effect on the scoring of the try the try will be awarded.

This is the same as what is written in the NRL Referee's Guidelines located at:

http://www.rugbyleague.com.au/nrl/referee_guidelines.pdf

 

[Jethro]

This is the NSWRL rule book, I assume it is the same

OBSTRUCTION –



a) It is the responsibility of the decoy runner/s not to interfere with the defending team.

b) The ball runner cannot run behind his own team and gain an advantage.

c) A sweep player may receive the ball on the inside of a block runner as long as there is depth on the pass to him. It there is no depth he needs to receive the ball on the outside of the block runner.

d) Defensive decisions that commit defenders to decoy runners will not be considered obstruction.

e) Attacking players who loiter next to the play the ball can be interpreted as obstructing the defending team.

f) In the process of scoring a try an attacking player dives through or into the legs of the player who has played the ball a penalty will be awarded to the defending team. This action will be interpreted as obstruction.

g) If in the opinion of the referee/video referee the play had no effect on the scoring of the try the try will be awarded.

This is the same as what is written in the NRL Referee's Guidelines located at:

http://www.rugbyleague.com.au/nrl/referee_guidelines.pdf

 

[Fluffy]

g) for me

 

[Fluffy]

g) for me

 

[mickqld]

h) If it's determined that a more unpopular team i.e Manly , may gain a positive result then all actions closely resembling any miniscule infringement of the rules will be deemed to be illegal and hence penalties or no trys will be the ONLY decisions available to the referees.

 

[mickqld]

h) If it's determined that a more unpopular team i.e Manly , may gain a positive result then all actions closely resembling any miniscule infringement of the rules will be deemed to be illegal and hence penalties or no trys will be the ONLY decisions available to the referees.

 

[jbb/james]

D is my guess

 

[jbb/james]

D is my guess