Ben Cummins

[Joker's Wild]

Hardly a check. Hannant hit him so hard that he wasn't even pushed back and was able to carry on with his arms in the air looking for the penalty?

You and I both know mate that getting to a player and missing them is decided by split seconds in RL. The fact that he hit him and slowed his progress gaining his team an advantage counts for plenty. Should Robbie have kept going instead of appealing? Certainly but he felt his chances were done in by the contact and he had a case

 

[Frank_Grimes]

And again, Farah made the decision to take Hannant. Hannant can't disappear once he hits the line. You and I both know that players will often do this when a decoy runner comes their way - they take the hit and appeal for a penalty. Precisely what Farah did.

 

[Joely01]

And again, Farah made the decision to take Hannant. Hannant can't disappear once he hits the line. You and I both know that players will often do this when a decoy runner comes their way - they take the hit and appeal for a penalty. Precisely what Farah did.

Lol, hodges cannot run behind a player who interferes with an opposition player. End of story.

 

[gronkathon]

It was a shepherd but the definitions have been messed with alot over the years so there is more to it these days

 

[Frank_Grimes]

Lol, hodges cannot run behind a player who interferes with an opposition player. End of story.

Hannant didn't interfere with the opposition player. The opposition player took him on and got nudged then appealed. The video ref saw through his appeal and recognised that the play didn't affect the defence and awarded the try.

The real end of story.

 

[Joely01]

Hannant didn't interfere with the opposition player. The opposition player took him on and got nudged then appealed. The video ref saw through his appeal and recognised that the play didn't affect the defence and awarded the try.

The real end of story.

Wait hannant didn't interfere but he nudged him, what's the difference?

 

[Frank_Grimes]

Wait hannant didn't interfere but he nudged him, what's the difference?

Farah chose to take him on, and the nudge didn't impede his ability to defend, his decision to stand there with his arms in the air did. How do you not get this?

 

[Joely01]

Hannant didn't interfere with the opposition player. The opposition player took him on and got nudged then appealed. The video ref saw through his appeal and recognised that the play didn't affect the defence and awarded the try.

The real end of story.

"The simplest way of describing an obstruction play, is for a player to illegally run behind one of his team-mates, thus impeding the defenders who are attempting to tackle the ball runner."
http://www.rugbyleaguedigest.com.au/rugby-league-rule-interpretations-obstruction/

So your trying to tell me that Hannant didnt interfere with Farah coming out of the line to tackle Hodges?

 

[saint pebba]

Learn the rules:

"Defensive decisions that commit defenders to decoy runners will not be considered obstruction."

Good to see that you conveniently forgot about the first 2 lines on page 8 of this document and just skipped to the 4th line.

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

http://www.rugbyleague.com.au/nrl/referee_guidelines.pdf

It was an obstruction and should not have been a try. Have no doubt Hollywood Harrigan will come out today and admit they got it wrong.

 

[Doomednow]

7 years is nothing

when NSW had 80 years of domination of you hillbillies

queensland forever in new south wales shadow

It's times like this I wish I could save individual posts for later lols.

 

[Springs]

Don't you see all the players who just fall to the ground because otherwise it would be an obstruction? You are not allowed to run behind your own player like that, you never have been. You cannot gain an advantage from it which Hodges did. He ran around a decoy and into the gap which the decoy created. You are not allowed to do that. I'd say if Scott had stayed in instead of chasing Hodges then it would have been a penalty on the spot.

What you are saying is now running around the back of decoy runners is fair play. Once Hodges gains an advantage from doing that it's a penalty. There should be no 'oh but I don't know if he was ever going to stop the try' bullshit.

If Hodges passed out the back to a player who then ran into the gap fair game, but you cannot contend with a player who dummies to the decoy runner then runs around him into that gap. That has always been a penalty.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

Good to see that you conveniently forgot about the first 2 lines of this document and just skipped to the 4th line.

http://www.rugbyleague.com.au/nrl/referee_guidelines.pdf

It was an obstruction and should not have been a try. Have no doubt Hollywood Harrigan will come out today and admit they got it wrong.

No I saw them:

A) Hannant didn't interfere with Farah - Farah chose to take Hannant and then stood there appealing and not chasing Hodges.
B) Hodges gained no advantage from running behind Hannant - he gained advantage from stepping outside Beau Scott.

 

[Shorty]

Why are people whinging about the high tackle on Cronk? That's a penalty any day of the week in the NRL.
It doesn't matter if Cronk was slipping, contact was made - Penalty.
It's not that hard to understand.

 

[Springs]

"The simplest way of describing an obstruction play, is for a player to illegally run behind one of his team-mates, thus impeding the defenders who are attempting to tackle the ball runner."
http://www.rugbyleaguedigest.com.au/rugby-league-rule-interpretations-obstruction/

So your trying to tell me that Hannant didnt interfere with Farah coming out of the line to tackle Hodges?

And also didn't interfere with Scott who was drawn in by Hannant and shouldn't have to contend with Hodges running behind him.

 

[cornerposter]

it is when you're grasping at straws

 

[Frank_Grimes]

Don't you see all the players who just fall to the ground because otherwise it would be an obstruction? You are not allowed to run behind your own player like that, you never have been. You cannot gain an advantage from it which Hodges did. He ran around a decoy and into the gap which the decoy created. You are not allowed to do that. I'd say if Scott had stayed in instead of chasing Hodges then it would have been a penalty on the spot.

What you are saying is now running around the back of decoy runners is fair play. Once Hodges gains an advantage from doing that it's a penalty. There should be no 'oh but I don't know if he was ever going to stop the try' bullshit.

If Hodges passed out the back to a player who then ran into the gap fair game, but you cannot contend with a player who dummies to the decoy runner then runs around him into that gap. That has always been a penalty.

The decoy didn't create a gap. Hodges ran a different line to Hannant and took on the line about 5-10 metres away from the spot Hannant ran into. Scott was still defending precisely where he would have been had there been no decoy. Scott had every opportunity to tackle Hodges after Hannant went through, but he held off him and let him step outside him to the try line.

 

[saint pebba]

No I saw them:

A) Hannant didn't interfere with Farah - Farah chose to take Hannant and then stood there appealing and not chasing Hodges.
B) Hodges gained no advantage from running behind Hannant - he gained advantage from stepping outside Beau Scott.

Surely you are now just winding me up.

Firstly, Hannant ran a decoy and purposely stopped in the defensive line. This is interfering with the defenders as they should not have to go around a decoy runner.

Secondly, by running behind the decoy runner and into the gap, Hodges has clearly obtained an advantage.

If NSW had scored a try to win the match by doing this, all of the rednecks at suncorp would have gone bonkers.

 

[age.s]

I really don't like that a guy can fall into a legitimate tackle and get a penalty. I know what the rule is, but it encourages players to put their heads in dangerous positions. Creagh last night dived into a sea of legs and arms, and came away with a wound requiring 40 stitches. I don't know if he was trying to get a penalty, but the fact is if he got a love tap from a defenders wrist rather than the full force of a blokes knee he would have gotten one. That's not really an unlikely scenario, so there's obvious benefit for a player to do so. Why aren't we looking to protect guys who get hit by the hips or the knee? Because there's nothing a defender could do to stop something like that happening, and it was no different in the Williams tackle.

The onus should be on the guy with the ball to keep his head out dangerous areas. If he does that and still cops something in a tackle fair game. You'll get the occasional love tap from blokes slipping over, and there'll be the occasional descision that falls into grey areas, but you won't get these ridiculous penalties against blokes just effecting normal run of the mill tackles.

Not a QLD vs NSW thing either. Shits me when it happens on a week to week basis in the NRL too.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

In the end it's all just mostly noise from Blues fans who can't admit that QLD were the better team on the night.

The refs didn't alter the fact that NSW couldn't hold onto the ball at crucial moments. Nothing has been said yet about Hayne's second effort leg pull on Inglis as he got up to play the ball after crashing into the posts. That should have been a penalty right under the sticks.

Or the fact that the entire Blues defensive line was offside after Thurston's break downfield in the 33rd minute, although I'd like to think the ref was playing advantage with QLD on the attack.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

Surely you are now just winding me up.

Firstly, Hannant ran a decoy and purposely stooped in the defensive line. This is interfering with the defenders as they should not have to go around a decoy runner.

Secondly, by running behind the decoy runner and into the gap, Hodges has clearly obtained an advantage.

If NSW had scored a try to win the match by doing this, all of the rednecks at suncorp would have gone bonkers.

Again - Hannant is entitled to run through the defensive line as a decoy runner. Farah chose to go after him even though he could see he didn't have the ball. He then stood there and appealed for the penalty rather than trying to chase down Hodges. Hodges didn't run through a gap created by Hannant. He ran through a gap that he created by having Scott hang off him as he took on the line.