NRL changes obstruction rule interpretation

[mieko]

I think it's good that this has been amended and the Video ref can talk in the on field ref's ear and change his decision. Over the first 4 rounds i can see the game is turning into soccer with players now knowing that they just have to act like they are trying to make a tackle when a decoy runs through, throw their arms in the air willy nilly and not even have a crack at tackling the ball runner and they will get a penalty.
Some attempts these first couple of games are just ridiculous. I know, i'll stop trying to make the tackle and get hit by the decoy runner and i'll get a penalty, even if it's a metre or two away. Whatever happened to playing to the ref's whistle?

 

[Je$ter]

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)

Good players exploit lazy inside defenders tho. JT/CC show and go is the perfect example.

 

[Coxy]

That's what good players do

 

[Morkel]

Glad it's getting changed, but I don't think it needs to change a whole lot. What was happening was that clever/exploitative player like Lyon were just deliberately walking in to the decoys, taking a dive, and disarming any possible attacking threats before they even started.

My suggestion would be to merely use the same rules that are used when chasing / contesting for a kick, ie, you can't change your line in order to impede someone else. That goes for both the attacker and defender. If a decoy runner is headed for a gap, and the defender is the one that moves to cut them off, then the defender has initiated the contact, they're the one who read the play badly and they should be entitled to be sat on their fat torso-try-scoring arse. Problem solved.

 

[Dexter]

I see the Cows just scored a try that a week ago would have been disallowed and I think still should have been disallowed. ( Second try of the night )
Wes Naiqama had to stay and wait for the ball to be passed before sliding off which left a hole for Linnett to run into and the winger couldn't stop the try.

If the block runner hadn't obstructed the panthers defender Naiqama would have trusted his inside man to make the tackle and slid over to help make the tackle on Linnett. The defence was obstructed IMO because Naiqama made a decision based on a blocker running into his inside man.

We are back to this shit.

 

[tkday]

Yeah, I liked the original rule, leaving it up to interpretation is the worst thing you can do with NRL's terrible video refs.

 

[jarro65]

I disagree.

I like the new ruling. It takes away the opportunity for a defender to be caught out, and therefore run into an attacking player and simply fall over, thereby disallowing a fair try.

It makes more sense to me know anyway.

 

[Coxy]

I disagree.

I like the new ruling. It takes away the opportunity for a defender to be caught out, and therefore run into an attacking player and simply fall over, thereby disallowing a fair try.

It makes more sense to me know anyway.

There's that, but then it's going to be a matter of judgment was to whether a defender stuffed up or the decoy runner impeded them. They've corrected a grey area by introducing another grey area...

 

[Browny]

Cue AP debating the definition of a grey area ;)

 

[jarro65]

There's that, but then it's going to be a matter of judgment was to whether a defender stuffed up or the decoy runner impeded them. They've corrected a grey area by introducing another grey area...

I may not be the sharpest tool in my toolbox, but even i can tell on TV replays if a defender got it wrong and took the bad option, as opposed to someone who just 'crashes into' a decoy runner.

 

[tkday]

Have you seen the amount of bad calls the video refs did last year and have started to do this year? Anyways, I can both sides of the argument and we will have to wait and see how well they do with the obstruction rule.

 

[Dexter]

I disagree.

I like the new ruling. It takes away the opportunity for a defender to be caught out, and therefore run into an attacking player and simply fall over, thereby disallowing a fair try.

It makes more sense to me know anyway.

So you would be happy with the Broncs losing a game based on the eg. I posted above. Personally I'd be spewing, no way should a defender have to make a decision based on an attacker running into someone.

I hate the whingers who got this changed and there big excuse was "where is he supposed to go? he can't disappear" the short answer was he shouldn't be in amongst the defenders. With sliding defences decisions are made base on what happens on your inside, so if your slide is disrupted (allowing an attacker to get on the outside) by a block play then even if it's 3 players away it's obstruction.

By the same token if it was a poor read then the try should stand, unfortunately the vid refs just don't seem to know what to look at.

 

[Porthoz]

I tend to agree with you Dexter, but the problem is being able to distinguish a real obstruction from a bad read or even worse, a "dive".
There is a huge "grey area" involved in determining the above, especially when you're talking about quite a few different video referees, each with their own interpretation...

 

[Anonymous person]

add more grey areas! thatll fix all our problems!

 

[Dexter]

baha yeah more grey areas. That's what we need, they should cancel each other out.


Porthoz, I agree, which is why I preferred the way they started doing things at the start of the year. They did need apply a bit of common sense though like the Cronk no try. I just think they could have tweaked the rule a bit before going back to how things were last year.

 

[Kimlo]

You can't apply common sense and not have a grey area.

I kind of agreed with Fitler, in that they shouldn't have changed the rule at all and teams would have to learn to find a different attacking play that doesn't break the rules.

 

[Dexter]

Yes, I agree with Fittler too derp derp. I couldn't believe how he got howled down whenever he said that. Belcher is on the same page as well.

 

[Kimlo]

Yeah he got roasted for saying it, that's what I like about Fitler though, he's not afraid to voice his opinion even if it goes against the mainstream one.