LINK
IT would avoid a lot of wear and tear if rugby league left first-grade coaches out of any future decision-making about rule changes. Either that or any proposed rule changes should be given a thorough examination in lead-up matches to the premiership.
That would eliminate the need for the NRL's embarrassing and hasty retreat over this season's changes to the obstruction rule. There was nothing wrong with the obstruction rule as it was being interpreted this season. It at least locked referees and video referees in a clearly defined set of rules and eliminated the ambiguity about decision-making. It was long overdue.
The involvement of decoy runners in obstruction calls has been an increasing problem in recent years with some clubs seeming to even coach players in how to take advantage of the confusion. So the coaches joined hand for a singalong and advocated change. Then they decided they didn't like the change and reverted to the old system. It repeats the confusion of coaches getting their way a couple of years back to have unlimited interchange then changing their minds when they did not like it.
Now we have another season where clubs played under two sets of obstruction interpretations. Tries have been disallowed in the opening six rounds that may well be allowed for the remaining rounds.
Worsening the situation is requesting referees be more subjective in their rulings on obstruction. It is subjective rulings by referees on penalties, tries, scrums, offside and illegal tackles that causes most problems in the game. Last Friday night subjective ruling saw at least two and possibly three illegal tries awarded in the Dragons-Panthers match.
Now we're letting referees have free rein on another one.
IT would avoid a lot of wear and tear if rugby league left first-grade coaches out of any future decision-making about rule changes. Either that or any proposed rule changes should be given a thorough examination in lead-up matches to the premiership.
That would eliminate the need for the NRL's embarrassing and hasty retreat over this season's changes to the obstruction rule. There was nothing wrong with the obstruction rule as it was being interpreted this season. It at least locked referees and video referees in a clearly defined set of rules and eliminated the ambiguity about decision-making. It was long overdue.
The involvement of decoy runners in obstruction calls has been an increasing problem in recent years with some clubs seeming to even coach players in how to take advantage of the confusion. So the coaches joined hand for a singalong and advocated change. Then they decided they didn't like the change and reverted to the old system. It repeats the confusion of coaches getting their way a couple of years back to have unlimited interchange then changing their minds when they did not like it.
Now we have another season where clubs played under two sets of obstruction interpretations. Tries have been disallowed in the opening six rounds that may well be allowed for the remaining rounds.
Worsening the situation is requesting referees be more subjective in their rulings on obstruction. It is subjective rulings by referees on penalties, tries, scrums, offside and illegal tackles that causes most problems in the game. Last Friday night subjective ruling saw at least two and possibly three illegal tries awarded in the Dragons-Panthers match.
Now we're letting referees have free rein on another one.
