Game 3 - Post Match Discussion

Dexter said:
Watch it as many times as you like it won't change the rule. I'm happy we got the call our way but it doesn't change the fact it was the wrong ruling.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Coxy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
Sorry NSW supporters but Origin gets bigger every year and that game was one of the best ever. So Origin wont be dead any time soon.
 
Coxy said:
It just comes across as a lack of grace from QLD fans. The excuse that NSW act like ***** doesn't wash with me. Very childish counterargument.

Just like I wouldn't accept QLD fans taunting Jennings et al with racial slurs just because NSW fans did it to ours in game 1.

Two wrongs don't make a right.
Click to expand...
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!
 
I put bad sportsmanship up there with racism to be honest. It's the lowest form of humanity.
 
Porthoz said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dexter said:
Watch it as many times as you like it won't change the rule. I'm happy we got the call our way but it doesn't change the fact it was the wrong ruling.
Click to expand...

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
 
Coxy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Ari Gold said:
But Hodges didn't gain an advantage by running behind Hannant. The advantage was gained from Scott moving in to take Hannant.
Click to expand...

Exactly, so if Hannant isn't there Scott doesn't move toward him, instead he tries to tackle Hodges.
 
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.
 
New Posts

Unread

Watch

YouTube
0 0 484
1:26:10
NSWRL Preliminary Final, 1990 - Canberra Raiders vs Brisbane Broncos
View full media list »

Active Now

  • ChewThePhatt
  • MrTickyMcG
  • heartly87
  • Clintos
  • Stix
  • Xzei
  • Sproj
  • Fozz
  • thenry
  • Broncosgirl
  • Wolfie
  • Culhwch
  • barker
  • Ozired
  • Morepudding
  • GCBRONCO
  • The Strapper
  • Tmac
... and 2 more.
Total: 111 (members: 22, guests: 89)
Robots: 288
Top
  AdBlock Message
Please consider adding BHQ to your Adblock Whitelist. We do our best to make sure it doesn't affect your experience on the website, and the funds help us pay server and software costs.