Four Nations Final - New Zealand vs Australia

[levikaden]

I thought the English ref did a good job

 

[mieko]

I thought Klemmer was a wired selection but he really stood up and played great throughout the tournament, well done. Woods on the other hand....

 

[Dexter]

It doesn't matter if anyone was obstructed, you cant catch the ball on one side of a decoy runner and run behind them to the other side.

I 100% agree with this but this view is not supported by the rules. Andrew Johns harped on about it but he is wrong.
Personally. I think it's crap that this can happen because it opens up a massive grey area, also I don't think a defender should have to be able to see through anyone to make his decision. If the attack gets it right the deception will still work.


Obstruction 5. A player who is not holding the ball shall not be
tackled or obstructed. (See Section 15).

1. A player is guilty of misconduct if he:

(j) deliberately obstructs an opponent who is not in
possession.

NZ were the better side all tournament and the better side in the final as well so kudos to them.

 

[Anonymous person]

Iirc its one of the new interpretations of the obstruction rules that was brought in either this year or last year. On mobile so cant find all the laws/referee guidelines, but I assume it would be in ref guidelines. All the commentators banged on about it throughout the year too, I don't think every single one of them is wrong.
[MENTION=8215]Morkel[/MENTION], thats just stupid and you know it. Noone has to even be touched for an obstruction to occur, but a head high tackle has to have contact. Completely different, and the fact you said that shows a lack of understanding of the rules.

Found this link:

NRL referees boss Daniel Anderson provides clarity on obstruction rule | News.com.au

IT'S really not that complicated - run behind a teammate and you'll be penalised for obstruction.

Referees boss Daniel Anderson has restored sanity and tradition to the game's most maddening rule, which was rife with varied interpretation last season.

Notwithstanding how much distance separates the ball-carrier from decoys or blockers, teams will now be penalised should any attacker run behind a teammate. The same consequences will apply to sweep players who receive the ball on the inside - rather than directly behind or outside - a decoy runner.

 

[Morkel]

Iirc its one of the new interpretations of the obstruction rules that was brought in either this year or last year. On mobile so cant find all the laws/referee guidelines, but I assume it would be in ref guidelines. All the commentators banged on about it throughout the year too, I don't think every single one of them is wrong.
[MENTION=8215]Morkel[/MENTION], thats just stupid and you know it. Noone has to even be touched for an obstruction to occur, but a head high tackle has to have contact. Completely different, and the fact you said that shows a lack of understanding of the rules.

On the same token, someone has to be obstructed for an obstruction to occur. If they pulled the same play on a kick-off, with no opposition within 30 metres, is it an obstruction?

 

[Anonymous person]

On the same token, someone has to be obstructed for an obstruction to occur. If they pulled the same play on a kick-off, with no opposition within 30 metres, is it an obstruction?

Yes. Read my edit above - directly states from the head of the referees that catching on the inside and running to the outside is an obstruction.

 

[animal eater]

Sheens... Why do you wait 68 minutes to put Hunt on? Kangaroos needed his spark earlier. Thaiday... why did you pretend to be a rep forward. Man was that a poor display! Griping aside, the Kiwis outplayed Australia. SJ was head and shoulders better than any other player on our side.

 

[Danoz Direct]

Sheens... Why do you wait 68 minutes to put Hunt on? Kangaroos needed his spark earlier. Thaiday... why did you pretend to be a rep forward. Man was that a poor display! Griping aside, the Kiwis outplayed Australia. SJ was head and shoulders better than any other player on our side.

He waited longer than 68 minutes more like 72 minutes, the moron.

 

[Huge]

Firstly, congratulations to NZ. The best team over the distance and the better team on the night. It's a tremendous thing for rugby league and the first year I've felt optimistic about the game internationally,certainly for twenty years. Now I genuinely don't know if we are going to win when we play NZ or England, in fact I would like it if it swung even more heavily towards those two teams. The games only healthy when we are not always on top, when there is doubt.

I would like to see the games hierarchy redouble their efforts in Samoa,Tonga,Fiji and New Guinea and even in remote uncivilised places like Victoria .



My good mate ,the Samoan Gandalf is over the moon and was in the crowd after flying 9,000 kilometres to be there. Karratha,Perth,Brisbane and NZed. Now that was a happy Chappy bro !

I thought the ref was good and treated both the same. The ten seemed reasonable and the ruck was okay without too much petty penalty shit. We weren't good enough and no one but the team/coach were to blame. The Kiwis wanted it more and were prepared to do what had to be done. The big winners were international football with England and Samoa great participants. Very happy with the result.

 

[Big Pete]

Stolen from LU.

Bound to get some usage here.

 

[Big Pete]

As for the obstruction rule.

NRL General Manager of Football Operations, Mr Nathan McGuirk, has today issued an amendment to the obstruction rule that will allow Video Referees to determine the significance of any contact by block runners when ruling on try-scoring situations.

Obstruction rule amended - NRL.com

Only reason I know this is because the 2013 Annual highlighted an otherwise forgettable Manly/Tigers clash. In that match, the Tigers were denied a try due to the strict one-size fits all obstruction rule.

Now it's basically back to what it was and nobody can get any consistensy out of it.

 

[Dexter]

As for the obstruction rule.



Obstruction rule amended - NRL.com

Only reason I know this is because the 2013 Annual highlighted an otherwise forgettable Manly/Tigers clash. In that match, the Tigers were denied a try due to the strict one-size fits all obstruction rule.

Now it's basically back to what it was and nobody can get any consistensy out of it.

These are the current refs guidelines re obstruction. It's no wonder there is confusion because the guidlines are still open to interpretation. The DCE sweep play we are talking about is obstruction according to 3 but when you apply 4 and 5 you can see why it was allowed.

2 Ball Carriers must not run behind an active ‘Block’ or ‘Flat’ runner and disadvantage the defensive line (ie a
defender cannot be expected to defend against this play)


3 Attacking players who run a ‘Sweep’^ line must receive the ball beyond the inside shoulder of the ‘Block’ or
‘Flat’ runner


4 Defensive decisions that commit defender to initiating contact with an attacking player(s) will not be deemed
obstruction


5 Defensive decisions that commit defender to change their defensive line will not be deemed obstruction.


*Block runners run lines towards an opposition goal line and are committed to receiving the ball close to the defensive line


^Sweep runners run lines in an arc across the field behind a block runner

 

[Super Freak]

It does say in the rulebook that if in the opinion of the ref or video refs the attacking team didn't gain any advantage from it, then it will not be deemed obstruction. That's why Maranta's try against the Bulldogs was awarded.

Did Australia really gain an advantage from what DCE did? The hole was opened up because the defenders committed to the decoy runners and Foran made a very bad attempt to tackle DCE.

 

[Anonymous person]

Id say the did gain an advantage because he waltzed through untouched, and the defender couldn't see him because he went behind a decoy.

 

[Big Pete]

The way I see it, it was a 50/50 that most certainly went the Aussies way.

Just a heads up that BigPond used the Sky NZ replay of the game which means only one thing - Vossy is calling it!

 

[Super Freak]

This is the moment where DCE actually caught the ball. He is already behind the decoy runner when he caught it.

Foran wasn't impeded in any way, and he made a very bad attempt at tackling DCE.

I don't see any obstruction.

 

[Super Freak]

The way I see it, it was a 50/50 that most certainly went the Aussies way.

Just a heads up that BigPond used the Sky NZ replay of the game which means only one thing - Vossy is calling it!

Yeah, but that also means Halligan will be one of the commentators.

 

[Big Pete]

Yeah, but that also means Halligan will be one of the commentators.

*shrug*

Try drinking with the glass half-full sometime SF.