Hodges Try?

[Geohood]

Honestly in all I've watched footy, you can't run around your teammate if they are engaging the defense.. Isn't that the definition of shepard? Sure you can pass but how was Hodges allowed to run behind his decoy? Shouldn't Mini's try in the 04 GF been awarded then?

 

[Big Pete]

No.

The rules were changed in '11.

 

[cornerposter]

I blame Farah, instead standing still waving his arms around like an idiot complaining to try and get the penalty he should have been playing to the whistle and ran across to get in a position to possibly save a try.

This. But NSWankers can't bag Robbie, he's the only shining light they've got to pin their hope on in 2013. Surely it wasn't his fault :sarcasm:

Scott and whoever else was there shouldn't even have to make a 'read'.

Really? Why?
Maybe we should mail in the Qld game plan before the match. Give NSWailes a play by play run down on all potential Qld plays and set moves. We'll be sure to includes X and O with lines and arrows so your boys don't need to think to much about. God forbid the NSWailes ladies need to 'read' the play...FMD

 

[Canard]

Honestly in all I've watched footy, you can't run around your teammate if they are engaging the defense.. Isn't that the definition of shepard? Sure you can pass but how was Hodges allowed to run behind his decoy? Shouldn't Mini's try in the 04 GF been awarded then?

There is no such "rule" as a shepard.

This is only an issue, once again, because of the NSW commentary team being bullied into a position by loudmouth Gould.

 

[hellteam]

Shit call. If that happened in an NRL match it would have been a penalty straight away, wouldnt have even gone to video

 

[Frank_Grimes]

Honestly in all I've watched footy, you can't run around your teammate if they are engaging the defense.. Isn't that the definition of shepard? Sure you can pass but how was Hodges allowed to run behind his decoy? Shouldn't Mini's try in the 04 GF been awarded then?

From the 2011 NRL Rule book:


Obstruction:

a) It is the responsibility of the decoy runner/s not to interfere with the defending team.
b) The ball runner cannot run behind his own team and gain an advantage.
c) A sweep player may receive the ball on the inside of a block runner as long as there is depth on the pass to him. It there is no depth he needs to receive the ball on the outside of the block runner.
d) Defensive decisions that commit defenders to decoy runners will not be considered obstruction.
e) Attacking players who loiter next to the play the ball can be interpreted as obstructing the defending team.
f) In the process of scoring a try an attacking player dives through or into the legs of the player who has played the ball a penalty will be awarded to the defending team. This action will be interpreted as obstruction.
g) If in the opinion of the referee/video referee the play had no effect on the scoring of the try the try will be awarded.

The two passages in bold are key to this decision. Farah was not impeded by Hannant, and then consequently never made an effort to get to Hodges. Instead he threw his arms in the air and appealed for the penalty. Scott stepped towards Hannant and then committed to Hodges, but held off him and watched Hodges step around him. Carney was simply fended away by Hodges.

Farah gave up the chase on Hodges, and was never going to get to him anyway. Scott and Carney both had opportunities to tackle Hodges, but Scott held off him, and Carney was swatted away. Hodges going behind the path of the decoy runner had no impact on the try, as the same defenders he would have been going up against had there been no decoy runner were still there and able to tackle him. And they both let him through.

Try.

 

[bluey]

not a try, never has been a try, never will be a try. Defensive reads have nothing to do with it. Disgraceful decision!

this

 

[Rod]

Really? Why?

I've already said why. As soon as Hodges runs behind Hannant he creates a situation thats been an instant penalty for as long as I can remember.

 

[Snappy]

Has the OP ever made a post on LU that hasn't been a direct cry over a ref decision ?

Stop whinging like a little bitch and take a loss like a man.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

I've already said why. As soon as Hodges runs behind Hannant he creates a situation thats been an instant penalty for as long as I can remember.

No, he doesn't. Learn the rules, they're posted right above.

 

[Rod]

I read the rule that supposedly applies here. I just don't agree that it does. You can't just quote a rule and then it instantly applies to every situation. Someone mentiomed Lewis before, if he scores off that run thetetically they could still cite that rule despite the two situations being completely different.

 

[Rod]

Double

 

[Frank_Grimes]

I read the rule that supposedly applies here. I just don't agree that it does. You can't just quote a rule and then it instantly applies to every situation. Someone mentiomed Lewis before, if he scores off that run thetetically they could still cite that rule despite the two situations being completely different.

No. Quite clearly Hodges gained no advantage from running behind Hannant's path as a decoy runner. You've already mentioned that defensive reads shouldn't come into it when it's very clear from the rules that it is the defender's responsibility to make a defensive read, and if he makes the wrong one due to the decoy runner, it's still not an obstruction. The two defenders who would have been taking on Hodges had the decoy runner not been there were still there after the decoy runner and both had ample opportunity to tackle him.

I haven't seen the Lewis run again, so I can't comment on whether the rule would have applied had he scored, but just because Gus repeats "You can't run behind you're own team" ad nauseum doesn't make it true. As evidenced by the rules posted above.

 

[Bgoodorgoodatit]

well bill has just revolutionised the game and set a pretty dangerous standard.

if i was an nrl coach i would be running this play every set every week as now its a free for all. as long as the decoy runner doesnt impede the defenders then running around behind them is now officially ok.

going to make it interesting.

i personally dont believe its a try. clearly bill didnt tell the players in 2011 "ok guys you can now run behind your decoys as long as they dont impede the defensive line" or you wouldnt see players surrender every time they accidently do it pretty much every round in the NRL.

but if this is the new interpretation so be it.. let the games begin

 

[Hutty1986]

I think it was just a f*cking shocking piece of defence & a fair try. Reminded me of some of those disgustingly soft tries we let in during that 09 series (Well take your pick from the soft efforts in 06/07/08/09/10/11/12, really)

 

[StFigJam]

From the 2011 NRL Rule book:


Obstruction:

a) It is the responsibility of the decoy runner/s not to interfere with the defending team.
b) The ball runner cannot run behind his own team and gain an advantage.
c) A sweep player may receive the ball on the inside of a block runner as long as there is depth on the pass to him. It there is no depth he needs to receive the ball on the outside of the block runner.
d) Defensive decisions that commit defenders to decoy runners will not be considered obstruction.
e) Attacking players who loiter next to the play the ball can be interpreted as obstructing the defending team.
f) In the process of scoring a try an attacking player dives through or into the legs of the player who has played the ball a penalty will be awarded to the defending team. This action will be interpreted as obstruction.
g) If in the opinion of the referee/video referee the play had no effect on the scoring of the try the try will be awarded.

What about these ones???

 

[Frank_Grimes]

What about these ones???

Already addressed, but I'll go over it again for you:


a)It is the responsibility of the decoy runner/s not to interfere with the defending team.
No defender was impeded by the decoy runner - Farah gave up trying to chase after Hodges and started appealing, but he was never going to get to him regardless of the decoy.

b) The ball runner cannot run behind his own team and gain an advantage.
Again - Hodges gained no advantage from running behind the path of the decoy runner. The defenders who had a chance to tackle him were the same ones who would have been there without the decoy runner.

I think it was just a f*cking shocking piece of defence & a fair try. Reminded me of some of those disgustingly soft tries we let in during that 09 series (Well take your pick from the soft efforts in 06/07/08/09/10/11/12, really)

Well said.

 

[firechild]

The King said last night that it wasn't a try. He said if NSW were awarded a try under similar circumstances, he would have been blowing up deluxe. Is the King wrong? Quick, take down his statue...

Not a single banana bender has responded to this post. It's called cognitive dissonance, the inability to hold 2 conficting ideas. The first is that the opposition MUST be wrong and the second being that one of their own (one they call the King no less) cannot be wrong.

 

[Big Pete]

Why would we take down his statue? He earned it by being a fantastic player and servant for QRL. Not for being a mediocre commentator surrounded by Blues.

 

[firechild]

Geez Pete. Clutching at straws again? Ignore the bit about the statue, it was clearly a joke. How about addressing the fact that even the great Wally Lewis said he would have been furious if the same try had been awarded against QLD. As I said, cognitive dissonance.