'14 // R1 // Fri // Bulldogs 12-18 Broncos // ANZ

[0neye]

DOG'S NEED TO BACKUP!!!!!!! @_=:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:

 

[tomdl]

Broncos defence was pretty solid, their attack is still pretty ordinary but their were some promising signs. Anyone else feel tonight was the best theyve ever seen maranta play (still average but haha)? Dogs attack was pretty awful, some real lazy players in the team.

Maranta wa brillaint. Whoever is mentoring him needs to keep it up. Because he really does have some potential. Hard to fully assess his performance based on how awful the dogs and most of Brisbane were though

 

[Card Shark]

DOG'S NEED TO BACKUP!!!!!!! @_=:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:

Why, in case they make a break?

 

[Canard]

So suddenly in Phil Goulds biased little mind if someone runs a decoy, and the defence gets sucked in its wrong?

The guy is single handedly wrecking our sport by creating fake controversy to suit his agendas.

 

[mongoose]

So suddenly in Phil Goulds biased little mind if someone runs a decoy, and the defence gets sucked in its wrong?

The guy is single handedly wrecking our sport by creating fake controversy to suit his agendas.

It's annoying since there has been so much controversy about obstruction over the last few years, but last night was simply nothing. That Broncos try was completely within the rules and Gould's geniused comments are just going to confuse people.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

The rule is that you can't run behind your own player to gain an advantage. It doesn't say anything about before or after the defensive line.

So, by that logic - any decoy runner creates an imaginary line behind him now that can't be crossed by an attacking player with the ball, regardless of the decoy's position. Hunt didn't gain any advantage. The two Dogs defenders held off him before the decoy came through, they never moved toward the decoy, the decoy never made contact and they were in the same position after the decoy had finished his run. That's not gaining advantage, and if you think it is, you're basically taking away any responsibility of defenders to defend.

IMO, Hunt gained an advantage because Hodkinson was drawn into Hannant because Hunt isn't supposed to be able to run behind Hannant.

Hunt didn't run behind Hannant. At no point was Hunt behind him on his run. He crossed Hannant's path well after he had finished his decoy run. That's not running behind a player.

There are basically two takes on this situation:

* The rationale that an attacking player actually has to gain an advantage by running behind a decoy, or the decoy impeding defenders - aka THE RULE

* The 'fingers in the ears' stubborn opinion of Gould and his parrots - "you can't run behind your own player".

 

[beave]

If that try was scored against my team, I would be ropeable not at the ref but the idiots in my team for not stopping the try. It was such a f**king nothing play and the dogs couldn't even stop it.

That whole game from plalyers to refs last night was pretty bad. Well compared to the night before where I thought pretty much everything was really good (besides the stupid no shoulder charge rule). Watching the broncos fans jawing off on social media is highly amusing.

 

[TheVelourFog]

Lotta casual fans in here or what. Looked like nothing at the time, fair try every day of the week.

 

[gronkathon]

Tony Williams is hypnotic.

Weak run, tackled, give tackler a dirty look, adjust pants, acknowledge the crowd, play the ball, look confused

 

[nick87]

Correct, "and gain an advantage" there was no advantage if he did or not, play on! 18-12!

Is scoring a try not an advantage?

 

[nick87]

What advantage did Hunt gain?

It wasn't an obstruction in today's form of the game, it was a classic old school Shepard, which has always been an instant penalty.

The ball carrier ran behind a decoy player, it's the ball runners duty to immediately stop and surrender the play if he'd like to retain possession, the moment he promoted the ball he had taken an advantage. And there was a clear obstruction anyway, the defender who stayed on Hannett (was it him?), did so knowing that ball player by the rules couldn't run behind his own player. So he stays with his man, there for by running behind his own ball player, Hunt has created an extra man where there wouldn't have been one if he didn't circumvent the rules of the game.

It has been an automatic penalty whether a defender was specifically impeded since I was a boy, until last night. The disadvantage to the defense is taken by putting the defense in a position they should never have to contend with by the rules of the game, and the advantage to the offense is taken the moment the ball is promoted outside of that scope of play. Should have been a penalty, but as i said at the time, i couldn't care less really because i hate both teams. I just hope this is not going to be an ongoing thing throughout the year

Gould is a f**kwit but he got this 100% right, it's never been allowed in our game, it was one of those really easy black and white rules. Until last night.

 

[bileduct]

The rule is that you can't run behind your own player to gain an advantage. It doesn't say anything about before or after the defensive line.
IMO, Hunt gained an advantage because Hodkinson was drawn into Hannant because Hunt isn't supposed to be able to run behind Hannant.

People are going to disagree with that, but that's my take on it.

No advantage was gained.

The rule was designed to stop a player coming between the defender and the ball carrier. At no time was a defending player impeded from tackling the ball carrier by an opposition player without the ball.

Hannant ran straight through a gap and didn't touch anyone, and was about three of four meters beyond the defensive line when Hunt ran behind where he had been.

Fair try any day of the week.

 

[bileduct]

It wasn't an obstruction in today's form of the game, it was a classic old school Shepard, which has always been an instant penalty.

It wasn't a shepherd at all.

 

[innsaneink]

Tony Williams is hypnotic.

Weak run, tackled, give tackler a dirty look, adjust pants, acknowledge the crowd, play the ball, look confused

LOL.....on about four seperate occasions....no bigger pussy has played the game

===============
===============


On topic,
no name...
...no clue.

 

[Canard]

It wasn't an obstruction in today's form of the game, it was a classic old school Shepard, which has always been an instant penalty.

The ball carrier ran behind a decoy player, it's the ball runners duty to immediately stop and surrender the play if he'd like to retain possession, the moment he promoted the ball he had taken an advantage. And there was a clear obstruction anyway, the defender who stayed on Hannett (was it him?), did so knowing that ball player by the rules couldn't run behind his own player. So he stays with his man, there for by running behind his own ball player, Hunt has created an extra man where there wouldn't have been one if he didn't circumvent the rules of the game.

It has been an automatic penalty whether a defender was specifically impeded since I was a boy, until last night. The disadvantage to the defense is taken by putting the defense in a position they should never have to contend with by the rules of the game, and the advantage to the offense is taken the moment the ball is promoted outside of that scope of play. Should have been a penalty, but as i said at the time, i couldn't care less really because i hate both teams. I just hope this is not going to be an ongoing thing throughout the year

Gould is a f**kwit but he got this 100% right, it's never been allowed in our game, it was one of those really easy black and white rules. Until last night.

This is blatantly ignorant.

Running behind someone isn't a penalty automatically. The shepherd is a playground rule, not an actual one.

I wonder how much footy people watch to think this way?

Gould was way wrong, he wanted the Dogs to win and he couldn't handle it when they didn't.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

It wasn't an obstruction in today's form of the game, it was a classic old school Shepard, which has always been an instant penalty.

The ball carrier ran behind a decoy player, it's the ball runners duty to immediately stop and surrender the play if he'd like to retain possession, the moment he promoted the ball he had taken an advantage. And there was a clear obstruction anyway, the defender who stayed on Hannett (was it him?), did so knowing that ball player by the rules couldn't run behind his own player. So he stays with his man, there for by running behind his own ball player, Hunt has created an extra man where there wouldn't have been one if he didn't circumvent the rules of the game.

It has been an automatic penalty whether a defender was specifically impeded since I was a boy, until last night. The disadvantage to the defense is taken by putting the defense in a position they should never have to contend with by the rules of the game, and the advantage to the offense is taken the moment the ball is promoted outside of that scope of play. Should have been a penalty, but as i said at the time, i couldn't care less really because i hate both teams. I just hope this is not going to be an ongoing thing throughout the year

Gould is a f**kwit but he got this 100% right, it's never been allowed in our game, it was one of those really easy black and white rules. Until last night.

I don't know if it's possible to get it more wrong than the above. Kudos.

It's like someone described the situation to you through charades and you've made your assessment based on just that.