Obstruction

[Guest]

The try taken away from Melbourne tonight though was a 50-50. Yes he was in no position to tackle the try scorer... BUT the new rule states that the decoy runner must not make contact (I presume that means initiate contact) - and he did run a line straight at the defender who is entitled to hold his ground. If the defender had moved into the decoy's line of run it is play on.

This is the issue, whose to say the defender does not purposely initiate contact to milk it. It is happening & will get worse as the weeks go by.

[Rooster_6]

This is the issue, whose to say the defender does not purposely initiate contact to milk it. It is happening & will get worse as the weeks go by.

If the defender initiates contact then it's his fault. You're right though it does leave a lot of room for the rule to be exploited.

I don't think there was anything wrong with the rules last year, the refs just weren't applying it correctly and there was no consistency in the precedents set.

[Rooster_Luke]

I know there are laws that the referees have to adjudicate by. BUT anyone with half a brain could tell that the defender who was impeded would never in a million years have been able to have an impact on that play.

Common sense is nowhere to be seen and its very very frustrating!
I don't think Daniel Anderson would have been happy with the decision

[Guest]

When I initially saw last night's decision, I thought it was a bad call. But after thinking about it this morning, I think the call is correct. The bulldogs player that was taken out of play was denied the chance to push across the field to help the other defenders. If that player was allowed to push accross, then the other defenders would have slid across as well, giving them a better chance to stop the try. Just hope the refs are consistent......

[stsae]

When I initially saw last night's decision, I thought it was a bad call. But after thinking about it this morning, I think the call is correct. The bulldogs player that was taken out of play was denied the chance to push across the field to help the other defenders. If that player was allowed to push accross, then the other defenders would have slid across as well, giving them a better chance to stop the try. Just hope the refs are consistent......

That's the crucial point for me, the reffs must now be consistent. If the decoy initiates the contact, no matter the bearing on the try, it MUST be a penalty. If the defender initiates the contact, well thats a try.

Good post IMO, Rusty.

[kurtsherlock6]

I have absolutely no sympathy for Melbourne on this one. How many times have they been allowed tries from blatant obstructions over the last few years? There were a couple of tries they scored against us last year that readily spring to mind.

[Guest]

Happy to see everyone is noticing it, there needs to be common sense, if not there needs to be consistency at the least. I can just imagine it happening against us & the ref awarding it making me punch a hole through a wall.

[Andrew Walker]

The rule is a joke Whoever started this thread is spot on

[Guest]

The rule is a joke Whoever started this thread is spot on

haha YAAAY, feel like cracking open a bottle of champagne.

[Guest]

Quote from Gus:
This notion that contact between an attacker and a defender always constitutes illegal obstruction is flawed. Now that defenders know the video referee will save them if there is any contact, I guarantee you they will make sure contact happens.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/l...#ixzz2OiZkFYYl

This is exactly what i am saying.

[Jacks Fur Coat]

The Melbourne one that was called back was beyond ridicurous....as much as I despise that entity.

Daniel Anderson's comments in support of that decision made my blud run cold....I was praying for salvation from abysmal reffing with his appt.

[chook 56]

I think the whole mess just got messier :/