"That" Raiders Scrum

[mal]

For anyone who didn't see it.. try get some footage.. basically Carney was packing the scrum and the raiders forwards split the scrum, he rain straight through it to score. I thought it was great!

Yeah I know there was "obstruction" but hey... give it a try haha!

 

[Flutterby]

Yeah I didn't have a problem with it myself.

 

[Coxy]

Well seriously, if they're going to disallow the Luke O'Donnell try in round 1 against us, then they had to disallow that one.

Therein lies the problem with the way the obstruction rule is applied by the video ref these days. If there is any obstruction, even 1 iota of obstruction, a 1/1000th chance of an impeded defender getting a fingernail on the ball carrier, they disallow it.

I'm with Gus in his general hatred of the obstruction rule, which was designed to stop people deliberately running into defenders to hold them back. Note the word DELIBERATELY.

In 99% of the tries that get disallowed the contact is not intentional on the part of the decoy runner, and/or the defender deliberately attempts to tackle them on suspicion of getting the ball. Which is the whole fucking point of decoy plays.

/rant

 

[Flutterby]

Yep I'm with Gus on this too.

 

[Playboy Bunny]

I liked it...I had nothing wrong with it. I do think Canberra may have pushed it a little too far which is why it did get called up in the end. I think if they could have maybe not made it AS obvious that they were pushing players then they may have got away with it.

 

[Emma]

I think it was a clever move....but the Canberra player did hold onto and push the Parramatta player away so it was understandably no try imo. As PB said, if he'd made it look more like a scrum push they might have gotten away with it, but it was pretty damn obvious what he was doing.

 

[Foordy]

yet the Turner try for the Storm against the Cowboys wasn't ruled obstruction. eusa_think in that try i Storm player without the ball ran into Thurston, then Slater ran right to where Thurston was before he was taken out and passed the ball to Turner. IMHO that one was the definition of obstruction.

 

[mrslong]

They disallowed the Hunt try on Saturday with the same ruling, which was a worse NO-Try than this, and this should've been allowed.

I loved the scrum-try! They were in pushing the scrum like they are supposed to. For crying out loud!!!

 

[Emma]

yet the Turner try for the Storm against the Cowboys wasn't ruled obstruction. eusa_think in that try i Storm player without the ball ran into Thurston, then Slater ran right to where Thurston was before he was taken out and passed the ball to Turner. IMHO that one was the definition of obstruction.

They didn't even go to the video on that one. If they had have, it surely would have been no try.

 

[Emma]

They disallowed the Hunt try on Saturday with the same ruling, which was a worse NO-Try than this, and this should've been allowed.

I loved the scrum-try! They were in pushing the scrum like they are supposed to. For crying out loud!!!

I realise they're supposed to push in a scrum, but there was one particular raiders player who I think took it too far and held the guy out of the play.

 

[Coxy]

Which is the real problem IMO. The on field referees use their own subjective judgement. If it gets sent upstairs then they apply 100% the letter of the law, no leeway at all - even the slightest impact and no try.

If they want consistency, then really any try that resulted from decoy runner must be referred. Won't that piss Gus off!

 

[Flutterby]

And the Parramatta guys pretty much just let the Raiders push them aside - pussys

 

[The Brizz]

I think it should have been disallowed but loved the tactic by the Raiders. Only problem I had with it was Flanaghan holding onto an opponent who I am 99% sure wouldn't have made a tackle anyway.

 

[Hamm.0]

Wow. Did you people not notice the part where the Canberra props split and BOTH pushed the opposition front row out of the way?

LOLZ, that some of you think the try should be allowed. It was the most blatant form of obstruction there is.

I can't even understand what the Raiders were thinking. Perhaps they could've attempted to make the obstruction (s) less obvious, which would actually be worse and would almost be straight cheating.

Simple question; was the opposition impeded from making a tackle? Yes, and more so than any other form of obstruction we normally see.

 

[mal]

Yeah Hammo it is obstruction.. but I dunno.. god it was good haha

 

[Hamm.0]

I will admit it made everyone take notice. If they want to do some funky stuff like that, why not try some set moves from the tap, etc?

Watch Parra in the 80's and try some plays that involve 6 decoy runners...lolz!

 

[Jeba]

Wow. Did you people not notice the part where the Canberra props split and BOTH pushed the opposition front row out of the way?

LOLZ, that some of you think the try should be allowed. It was the most blatant form of obstruction there is.

I can't even understand what the Raiders were thinking. Perhaps they could've attempted to make the obstruction (s) less obvious, which would actually be worse and would almost be straight cheating.

Simple question; was the opposition impeded from making a tackle? Yes, and more so than any other form of obstruction we normally see.

Agree 100% with this. No way in the world that should've been awarded a try.

 

[Ari Gold]

I'm still surprised that the Monaghan try was allowed to stand.