NRL 2026 Round 10 Discussion

Big Pete said:
Except Tupou is in front and is not a viable option at that point.

You're not allowed to use your team mate as a blocker just because he batted the ball back.
Click to expand...
He didnt use him as a blocker. He bats the ball directly to him and he is runni g around the back. Its like a run around. Its a legal play.
 
JayPee said:
Thats not how it works. Thats the correct ruling. It is the same when a player is in support and a defender deliberately runs into the support runner to milk a penalty.
Click to expand...
Look at the rules. You can't run in front of your own player if it disadvantages a defender. That is a legitimate book rule and takes precedent over "common sense". Ref also called it a No-Try. So they didn't take that into consideration at all either.

Teddy made the decision to run in that gap, if it was the other side of ruck, then your view applies.
 
JayPee said:
He didnt use him as a blocker. He bats the ball directly to him and he is runni g around the back. Its like a run around. Its a legal play.
Click to expand...
Recives the ball inside shoulder than runs to Tupou's outside shoulder.

That's not a wrap around.
 
Big Pete said:
Recives the ball inside shoulder than runs to Tupou's outside shoulder.

That's not a wrap around.
Click to expand...
It does not matter on plays like that.

Edit. I didnt say it was a wrap around by the way. I said its like a wrap around. He turns his back and bats it back and doesnt move. Tedesco is allowed to run to the outside.
 
JayPee said:
It does not matter on plays like that.
Click to expand...
Yes it does, that's the whole point of the play to avoid it being an obstruction. It's even the name of the play.

EDIT: Not from Tupou's inside shoulder.
 
Brett Da Man LeMan said:
By 'plays like that', do you mean, plays involving the roosters?
Then, yes, I agree
Click to expand...
No plays exactly like that. Its a try and he got it right. If there was justice for the Titans he would not have awarded it because he totally ****ed the prior call for a knock on.
 
Big Pete said:
Yes it does, that's the whole point of the play to avoid it being an obstruction. It's even the name of the play.

EDIT: Not from Tupou's inside shoulder.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that when a player bats the ball back inside a receiver than cant run to the outside of the player because he batted it back inside he has to run back towards the middle.

Yeah you got it man....
 
JayPee said:
It does not matter on plays like that.

Edit. I didnt say it was a wrap around by the way. I said its like a wrap around. He turns his back and bats it back and doesnt move. Tedesco is allowed to run to the outside.
Click to expand...
It still doesn't matter, because in the instance of a "play" in whatever way you are describing, that requires the defender to jam in on the first receiver and make the defensive read to go after him.

Just like any other obstruction rule, if the player makes that decision to go in, the obstruction rule is null and void.
 
Missed the first half.

5 penalties 'against' the roosters?

Is This For Real Good Burger GIF
 
JayPee said:
So you are saying that when a player bats the ball back inside a receiver than cant run to the outside of the player because he batted it back inside he has to run back towards the middle.

Yeah you got it man....
Click to expand...
Yes, not when the 'aerial target' stands in the way of the oncoming defence and the attacking player uses him to his advantage.

You don't get a free pass to stand in the line just because you made a pass/batted the ball.
 
New Posts

Unread

Back
Top