Every team does this basically anyone with a documentated report lodged by the club to the refs asking for clarifications on decisions the refs made in a match.

The problem that usually makes things worse, is the way the media put a spin on the results of the information that comes back.

I still think the Hodges try was a fair try and was just a poor read in defence. Yes it is close to obstruction but I feel the hole that was created was made worse by Carney rushing up too far out of the line and his missed tackle gave the advantage more so than the decoy runner.

 

And this is the biggest problem I have with Brad Fittler's argument. (and isn't he banging on about it!!). Carney rushed up out of the line because he thought they were running the second man out the back play. Hey Brad - when you were a coach were you not trying to maneuver players that would cause the defence to make mistakes like this and therefore make it easier for your team to score tries? No wonder this joker got the sack from his coaching job, and lucky for him he was a half decent football player, otherwise I would fear for the quality of our Big Macs and Quarter Pounders.

 

In fairness Jeb his argument is Carney rushed up because he thought (as did a lot of other ppl ) Hodges couldn't run behind Hannant and the only other option at that point was to pass the ball to Thurston.

 

He thought wrong :-)

 

So it seems. There is a lot more to this ruling from a football aspect though.

Forget about this happening during SoO and a try being awarded, I'm as happy as the next bloke we got the decision and even happier NSW are crying so publicly.

What will happen now is plays like Hodges will be put on and the on field refs can't possibly rule on depth and who was taken out and if they were close enough to the play to make a difference. What is defined as enough depth? How is it measured? The only way they can rule is by video ref when a try results from the play.
When plays like that happen and lead to a linebreak then a tackle and try on the next play you can't go back and check.

It's a mess which has started already, Titans v Warriors on Sat, Johnson runs around a player he dummied to who was only 3 mtrs away, the defender reads to hit the runner and Johnson runs behind the runner within a mtr of him. No penalty which is just crap.

I'm am sure the refs guidelines were not introduced to support that kind of play, anyway, I'm happy to sit back and watch this play out, in the mean time I hope the Broncs don't lose a game this way. ( If we win one that's OK :D )

 

I really don't see it as being any different than a player coming from the blind side to the open side to create an extra man. Just because they don't have the ball is irrelevant.

The argument seems to be that the defenders were all marking up on the players on their side of the field. It's called overcoaching. They see a move forming and assume it's going to play out exactly as they were coached. Then suddenly it's different and they cry foul.

As long as the decoy runner doesn't prevent a defender from getting to the ball carrier than I have no problem with running behind a teammate.

 

i like how some people seem to think theres just a hard and fast rule of "you cant run behind a teammate" lol. you can, provided that a defender isnt obstructed from making a tackle. noone in NSW was obstructed from making a tackle. Farah was 5m away and not even trying to tackle hodges, then he just spit his dummy out and whinged. scott wasnt obstructed, he genuinely fell for the DECOY runner. had scott have actually tackled hannant in that split second when hodges was behind him, it wouldve been a penalty. he didnt though, he didnt even try. he fell for the decoy, then chased hodges, and missed him pure and simple.

there never was a 'you cant run behind a teammate' rule, and there never should be.

 

True, however as Dexter points out the "unwritten rule" that was enforced for nigh on 100 years was that if you ran behind a teammate and kept going it was a penalty. I agree it's dumb, and I do recall a similar try scored by Darren Lockyer in a game against Canberra in 2001 and the commentators had a sook about that one too.

 

Farah has nothing to do with the play in any way.

There actually is a guideline that says you can't run behind a player and gain an advantage. The contentious part is what is an advantage.

Is there advantage because the defence has read that Hodges shouldn't be able to run behind Hannant? I played, coached, managed etc for the the best part of 25 years and that was always the case. Lewis, Gould, Sterlo, Fittler, Alexander etc area all of similar vintage and all think the same.

We haven't all imagined there was something called a shepherd, which used to be a straight forward call and now it's not.

I just feel that if we are making rules that need the tele to work it out we are heading in the wrong direction and I don't think it's fair on the refs in all the other games lower than NRL to get stuck with this.

 

Obstruction simply can't be black and white. The only way to do that would be to make decoy runners illegal. The whole point of decoy runners is to get the defence to make a bad read and open a gap. That's what happened.

Hodges gained an advantage because Carney rushed up on Thurston under the wrong assumption he was going to get the ball. Pure and simple.

 

And there is the problem, we are interpreting "advantage" a different way.

Maybe the refs guideline should read, A player can run behind a decoy runner provided that the decoy causes no obstruction to the defence.

 

Which is basically how decoy runners are treated in every other situation. As long as they don't impede/obstruct a defender they're fine.

 

Good, any other rules these nuffies need help with wording?

 

Firstly, in example 1 is the 3rd circle in from the left George Rose? Because he didn't play.

Secondly, the goalposts on example 2 are crooked........