The Obstruction rule

[Dexter]

I know this has been discussed at length but here is a new update from Harrigan and full explanation of each guideline, if this was that easy why are so many ppl confused including most of the refs.

How are refs who are reffing all the other non NRL games supposed to make calls, often from a fair distance, without the replays.

Harrigan still hasn't defined what an advantage is. If I was defending some of these examples and had to stop because of the decoy then the ball carrier runs behind him, to me he has gained an advantage because without the decoy I could have kept coming and smashed the pr@ck instead of having to wait and see.

Ok so I can't get a direct link to the vid. It's called obstruction rule revisited.


http://www.nrl.com/Default.aspx

 

[Coxy]

Meh. I think the obstruction hysteria is silly. if players weren't worrying about obstruction and just play what's in front of them we wouldn't have an issue. But every time a player runs behind a teammate, the defence throws their arms in the air.

People need to get over the whole "you can't run behind" thing. It's a myth. It's always been a myth. There's rarely an occasion where someone has been prevented from making a tackle as a result of it, and that should be the only criteria. Could a defender have made a tackle if not for the decoy getting PHYSICALLY in the way. Not line of sight, not "he wasn't sure who to take", if the decoy runs into the defender. That should be the ONLY criteria.

 

[Manifesto]

Meh. I think the obstruction hysteria is silly. if players weren't worrying about obstruction and just play what's in front of them we wouldn't have an issue. But every time a player runs behind a teammate, the defence throws their arms in the air.

People need to get over the whole "you can't run behind" thing. It's a myth. It's always been a myth. There's rarely an occasion where someone has been prevented from making a tackle as a result of it, and that should be the only criteria. Could a defender have made a tackle if not for the decoy getting PHYSICALLY in the way. Not line of sight, not "he wasn't sure who to take", if the decoy runs into the defender. That should be the ONLY criteria.

You have nailed it there, to me that is the best and most simple proposed rule I've seen while trawling though a variety of forums and websites. In that passage of play last night that Gus harped on about being an obstruction, it didnt look like one (although I'd like to see the replays again), and looked like the overlap was created by the Manly players stopping play and throwing their arms up.

 

[Kaz]

Noone gave a rats about the 'obstruction' rule until Origin.

Now it's the in thing to talk about.

 

[Dexter]

It's confusing as is demonstrated by the players, the coaches, the refs , the commentators and most of the fans not being sure.

The fact that Harrigan has to put out an explanation video in rnd 25 is a joke.

Coxy, I haven't been able to source a copy of the rules pre 2003 but I can assure you it is not a myth as you keep saying. You could never run behind your own player and use him as a deliberate decoy like the last couple of years.

Anyway, I didn't post the thread to go through all that again just to point out that this was always coming since the Hodges decision and that the game should not be having this discussion at all coming into the semis.

 

[OXY-351]

On Friday night, I think it was fairly obvious to everyone that at one stage Corey Parker ran around behind one of his team mates and it impeeded an opposition player, yet the refs made no call on it. I'm sure the refs saw it, but weren't 100% on it so thought they'd let play go on and see what evenutated.

I'm almost certain if they had scored from the play (which was looking somewhat likely as it opened up some space down the sideline), the refs would have gone to the video ref and it would have been denied, but because there was no try scored in the specific play in question, play is allowed to go on. If they score on the next tackle, they have still gained an advantage from the obstruction, but it cant' be ruled on by the video ref.

ffs refs, grow some balls and make the calls. I think too often these days refs are second guessing themselves because they are too worried about the scrutiny if they make an incorrect call. It's easier to not rule on the play, and then refer it to the video ref if needed.

I think the rules around the video ref need changing. Either they should be allowed to rule on any play during the game, or only allowed to rule on in goal issues (dropped balls etc).

 

[Big Pete]

100% right OXY, refs. addressed this on NRL.com and acknowledged it was flat out wrong.