It wasn't the wrong ruling. The crap Rabs and Gus were going on with that you can't run behind your own player, end of story, is wrong. Never was correct. Just because they score a try from it doesn't mean the "running behind the player" gained an advantage. In this case the advantage was gained because the Blues players stopped EXPECTING a penalty.
Game 3 - Post Match Discussion
- Thread starter ningnangnong
- Start date
It wasn't the wrong ruling. The crap Rabs and Gus were going on with that you can't run behind your own player, end of story, is wrong. Never was correct. Just because they score a try from it doesn't mean the "running behind the player" gained an advantage. In this case the advantage was gained because the Blues players stopped EXPECTING a penalty.
anzac7
NYC Player
- Sep 25, 2011
- 239
- 0
Precisely, GUS would have agreed with that call every time if it was in the NRL.. I have HEARD him do it MANY TIMES! He says things like "you have to be able to compensate for the decoys, it's part of the game"... but when it happens in Origin (oh, and the call is against NSW) and the decider is on the line and Mal is set to beat Gould's Origin record... IT'S SUDDENLY A SHEPHERD!
anzac7
NYC Player
- Sep 25, 2011
- 239
- 0
Taylor apologises those who couldn't handle 'the bird'...
http://www.nrl.com/dave-taylor-sorry-over-one-finger-salute/tabid/10874/newsid/68462/default.aspx
Just blown way out of proportion...
http://www.nrl.com/dave-taylor-sorry-over-one-finger-salute/tabid/10874/newsid/68462/default.aspx
Just blown way out of proportion...
I agree. That's heat of the moment silliness.
- Feb 27, 2010
- 30,093
- 12,358
Now you're comparing apples with oranges.
Giving the blues the bird after all the crap they dished out, and at the end of an extremely tight game with the series on the line, is very different from racially taunt anyone, which is basically not acceptable under any circumstance!
anzac7
NYC Player
- Sep 25, 2011
- 239
- 0
I think Coxy was talking more about the booing when NSW took the stand after the game than DT's bird. But as I said before, I see no problem with the booing as long as it's on the same day as adrenalin is still running etc. Next day we can be good sports again.
- Aug 27, 2008
- 2,836
- 4,035
I'm afraid I am another one to disagree with you Dexter
I do not have the rule book out and am not commenting on any rule interpretations
I simply want to compare that ruling to what we see week in week out in the NRL
The simple matter is that a thousand times in the NRL I've see decoy runners go through and the ball runner go behind them
The commentators, without question, always say the same thing - if somebody has been prevented from making a tackle, it's a penalty - otherwise it's a fair try
No blue was stopped from making a tackle, no blue was knocked over, nothing
That would have been a try any day of the week in the NRL and it's a try in Origin 3
- Mar 26, 2008
- 8,023
- 6,975
Scott didn't stop expecting a penalty, he stopped in anticipation of Hannant receiving the ball, this cost him forward momentum and at least 3 mtrs sideways. Below are the refs guidelines which were used for the interpretation of the try.
IMO the advantage gained by Qld was the fact that Scott had to stop then try to catch up to where he would have been had Hannant not been there which brings section (b) into play. It shouldn't get to section (d) IMO, but when you read all the guidelines you can see why the refs get confused.
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.
Jeba
International
- Mar 4, 2008
- 6,501
- 244
a) It is the responsibility of the decoy runner/s not to interfere with the defending team.
He went through like any normal decoy runner does, only difference is that Hodges didn't pass it behind him, he didn't knock anyone over, he hardly touched anyone.
b) The ball runner cannot run behind his own team and gain an advantage.
The advantage wasn't gained by Hodges running behind Hannant, it was gained by Scott's poor read and him being too slow to get across.
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.
There was no pass involved so this one is irrelevant
d) Defensive decisions that commit defenders to decoy runners will not be considered obstruction.
Scott made a bad decision, therefore not obstruction
e) Attacking players who loiter next to the play the ball can be interpreted as obstructing the defending team.
Again, irrelevant as this was away from the play the ball
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.
Irrelevant
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.
Fair to say it had an effect but the main effect came from the poor read from Scott.
Like I said earlier, I wouldn't be blowing up if the try wasn't awarded but it's one of those 50-50 calls, and just lucky enough that it went QLD's way.
He went through like any normal decoy runner does, only difference is that Hodges didn't pass it behind him, he didn't knock anyone over, he hardly touched anyone.
b) The ball runner cannot run behind his own team and gain an advantage.
The advantage wasn't gained by Hodges running behind Hannant, it was gained by Scott's poor read and him being too slow to get across.
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.
There was no pass involved so this one is irrelevant
d) Defensive decisions that commit defenders to decoy runners will not be considered obstruction.
Scott made a bad decision, therefore not obstruction
e) Attacking players who loiter next to the play the ball can be interpreted as obstructing the defending team.
Again, irrelevant as this was away from the play the ball
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.
Irrelevant
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.
Fair to say it had an effect but the main effect came from the poor read from Scott.
Like I said earlier, I wouldn't be blowing up if the try wasn't awarded but it's one of those 50-50 calls, and just lucky enough that it went QLD's way.
- Mar 13, 2008
- 6,522
- 2,807
But Hodges didn't gain an advantage by running behind Hannant. The advantage was gained from Scott moving in to take Hannant.
I'll happily admit I've seen plenty of interpretations where that's a shepherd, but in no way do I think b is in play here.
I'll happily admit I've seen plenty of interpretations where that's a shepherd, but in no way do I think b is in play here.
Kaz
State of Origin Captain
- Mar 5, 2008
- 10,086
- 3,857
The video of the try is on this link.
http://video.news.com.au/2253310849/Justin-Hodges-controversial-shepherd-try
The Blues player was expecting Hannant to get the ball & went to tackle him.
http://video.news.com.au/2253310849/Justin-Hodges-controversial-shepherd-try
The Blues player was expecting Hannant to get the ball & went to tackle him.
Big Pete
International Captain
- Mar 12, 2008
- 32,225
- 26,005
Still don't know how I feel about that decision. I don't think Hannant influenced the play enough to deny the Blues defence a fair opportunity but by the same token they always seemed to be very strict with the call. Bit lucky it went our way but it wasn't as bad as what the commentators were making out. It was like they were at a funeral until Stewart scored.
TBH, watching Kaz's link leads me to believe it was a try. Scott didn't seem to be too affected. He was just slow.
TBH, watching Kaz's link leads me to believe it was a try. Scott didn't seem to be too affected. He was just slow.
Last edited:
- Mar 26, 2008
- 8,023
- 6,975
Exactly, so if Hannant isn't there Scott doesn't move toward him, instead he tries to tackle Hodges.
Kaz
State of Origin Captain
- Mar 5, 2008
- 10,086
- 3,857
IMO: He read the play wrong. He wasn't expecting Hodges to still have the ball.
Bucking Beads
International Captain
- Mar 5, 2008
- 24,611
- 7,912
Didn't have the problem with the booing at all. It always happens and always will. I understand why some people wouldn't like it (mainly Kingaroy Rendant types) but this is Origin and this is just how it is I guess.
Bucking Beads
International Captain
- Mar 5, 2008
- 24,611
- 7,912
This is why it is called a decoy runner...
