NRL changes obstruction rule interpretation

[Big Pete]

The NRL have issued an amendment to the obstruction rule which will allow video referees to determine the significance of contact initiated by the offence.

 

[Kimlo]

In simpler terms, video ref will now judge if the obstruction had an actual impact on the play and rule based on that.

 

[Big Pete]

While I hope it isn't a sign that Anderson and co. are reactionary I'm glad they've acted swiftly to correct what could have become a blight on the game. When it comes to the obstruction rule, I believe it's important to assess each situation on a case by case situation as opposed to a black and white ruling. Some of the tries that have been called back (eg. Cooper Cronk vs. Canterbury) was ridiculous and it was fortunate it didn't impact on the result of the game.

 

[Kimlo]

Just out of interest, what's wrong with being reactionary? You can't always be pro-active. In fact I think in situations like this you should set the rules to achieve the most desirable outcome and then tweak them as you go to reach the optimal rulings in all cases. It's impossible to accurately predict how each rule will turn out in practice so it's essential that you just implement them and then tweak the weak areas once they've been implemented.

 

[vertigo]

Video refs are guilty of paralysis by analysis, just use some bloody common sense.

 

[Coxy]

Video refs are guilty of paralysis by analysis, just use some bloody common sense.

Oh noes. We can't have common sense. That'd introduce da grey areaz.

 

[Alec]

What colour do you call the area where they just screw up completely (at least 25% of the time?)?

 

[Coxy]

Blue.

 

[Big Pete]

Just out of interest, what's wrong with being reactionary? You can't always be pro-active. In fact I think in situations like this you should set the rules to achieve the most desirable outcome and then tweak them as you go to reach the optimal rulings in all cases. It's impossible to accurately predict how each rule will turn out in practice so it's essential that you just implement them and then tweak the weak areas once they've been implemented.

I see what you're saying and instances like this I'm fine with it.

But then you get situations like golden point where it only happened because the NSWRL kicked up such a big stink. What we got was a half-baked concept that was slopped all across the competition and nobody is satisfied with.

Universally, what I'm saying is that sometimes when people are reactionary, they over-correct things or plain miss the boat altogether. It can also be extremely confusing if tweaks are being made when journos want to kick up a stink.

 

[Coxy]

I see what you're saying and instances like this I'm fine with it.

But then you get situations like golden point where it only happened because the NSWRL kicked up such a big stink. What we got was a half-baked concept that was slopped all across the competition and nobody is satisfied with.

Universally, what I'm saying is that sometimes when people are reactionary, they over-correct things or plain miss the boat altogether. It can also be extremely confusing if tweaks are being made when journos want to kick up a stink.

Well yes. Like if they introduced a rule about ninja kicking based on one sole incident. The complaints over obstruction have been competition wide for the first 4 rounds. Something had to change.

 

[Big Pete]

Could be wrong, but it's really only been these past two weeks with the Cooper Cronk incident and then the Manly/Tigers game on Thursday.

Then again, I wouldn't have a problem with Anderson including a Storm clause for everytime they find a way to exploit the rules.

Mind you, kicking players in the face has never been tolerated in the game.

 

[vertigo]

Mind you, kicking players in the face has never been tolerated in the game.

JT kicked David Williams in the face in Origin... but it's Origin.

 

[Coxy]

JT kicked David Williams in the face in Origin... but it's Origin.

And it's Williams.

 

[Big Pete]

That was a crazy game.

Dallas grounded a ball with his Johnson.
Wolfman scored a try by getting kicked in the head (the obvious knock on for whatever reason was completely forgotten about)
Watmough played the ball I shit you not, 4m off the mark
Watmough, who was at dummy half, was allowed to grab the marker, pull him to the ground without anything happening
Justin Poore was allowed to pick up an unconscious player off the ground.

and Karmichael Hunt played lock of all positions.

The sad thing is, people completely forget about the awesome try Slater scored.

Although that ending was fantastic, probably the best finish to an Origin game I've ever seen.

 

[Coxy]

That was a crazy game.

Dallas grounded a ball with his Johnson.
Wolfman scored a try by getting kicked in the head (the obvious knock on for whatever reason was completely forgotten about)
Watmough played the ball I **** you not, 4m off the mark
Watmough, who was at dummy half, was allowed to grab the marker, pull him to the ground without anything happening
Justin Poore was allowed to pick up an unconscious player off the ground.

and Karmichael Hunt played lock of all positions.

The sad thing is, people completely forget about the awesome try Slater scored.

Although that ending was fantastic, probably the best finish to an Origin game I've ever seen.

And was the best player on the field by a mile.

 

[Dexter]

I can see why they changed it but I wish they had left it the way it was at least for a bit longer. Teams were just starting to change the way they ran the second man plays and coming up with a few different ways to cause the D to come in and leave space on the outside. Now we will go back to the block play adnauseum. The Broncos used the second man play brilliantly against Melb and didn't run players into defenders.

 

[Coxy]

The new way will still work better than the block play.

What they still need to do is take away the notion you can't run behind a decoy. Defenders get lazy on the inside because they think they don't have to worry about the ball runner.

Only time it should be an issue is if the decoy impedes a defender from tackling the ball runner (eg makes contact or forces the defender to go around them)

 

[Dexter]

I think teams ( coaches) will revert straight back to what they were doing last year and let the refs sort it out.
I have never liked a player being able to run the ball behind another player, to me it's a shepherd, always has been regardless of the terminology.