Hodges Try?

[Alderley Rooster]

Watching the footy show (possibly my first mistake) and cannot believe there are former footballers that think it was a try.

The simple fact is when Hodges took the ball the defence was making a decision based on two possibilities - that Hodges would pass to Hannant or Thurston. As such Carney moved up on JT and Scott and Farah held for hannant. Because Hodges took the "illegal" option of running behind his own player the gap was there and he ran through it. No try every day of the week. Whether there was enough gap to the defence etc is irrelevant because Hodges forced the defence to make a decision then made an illegal play to gain an advantage.

Freddy was the only one on the whole panel who could see that

 

[Charlie124]

I agree, Hodges really should have informed Farah and Scott that he was going to hold on to the ball rather than making them believe he was going to pass it and make them both feel like dummies.

 

[cornerposter]

Freddy was the only one on the whole panel who could see that

Enough said. TRY

 

[Rod]

For as long as I can remember you can't run behind your teammate, simple as that. In the last few years the interpretation has been clear as day and we see it every single week in the NRL that if the ball-carrier runs behind a teammate they either give themselves up (ie. stop and take the tackle) or be penalised.

It was funny watching Tallis bumbling on about bad reads trying to justify it being a try though. Too bad it has nothing to do with bad reads.

 

[Mr Fourex]

The thread that just had to be made.

IMO there was large enough distance between Hodges and his own players AND because no-one was impeded that it does NOT constitute a shepard.

 

[RHCP]

Freddy just made himself look silly.

It was a fair try.

 

[Cheops]

Should never have been given. It's a fairly simple rule - you can't run behind your own player and you see players "surrender" if they do it by accident every week. Why that changes in an origin match is beyond me.

Even if you try to take the Bill Harrigan approach and make an "interpretaion", it still had an impact on the play. If Hannant was never there or ran behind Hodges the gap between Scott and Carney (the one Hodges ran through) would have been much smaller, therefore Hodges gained an advantage by running behind a team mate, therefore no try. You don't have to knock someone to the ground for there to be an obstruction.

 

[Wally21]

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...

 

[chigurh]

For as long as I can remember you can't run behind your teammate, simple as that. In the last few years the interpretation has been clear as day and we see it every single week in the NRL that if the ball-carrier runs behind a teammate they either give themselves up (ie. stop and take the tackle) or be penalised.

It was funny watching Tallis bumbling on about bad reads trying to justify it being a try though. Too bad it has nothing to do with bad reads.

You have always been able to run behind a teammate.

 

[Charlie124]

Should never have been given. It's a fairly simple rule - you can't run behind your own player and you see players "surrender" if they do it by accident every week. Why that changes in an origin match is beyond me.

Even if you try to take the Bill Harrigan approach and make an "interpretaion", it still had an impact on the play. If Hannant was never there or ran behind Hodges the gap between Scott and Carney (the one Hodges ran through) would have been much smaller, therefore Hodges gained an advantage by running behind a team mate, therefore no try. You don't have to knock someone to the ground for there to be an obstruction.

Youve just described the job of a decoy runner. His objective is to have the defender in two minds and make the wrong decision, thus allowing the ball carrier to run/pass/kick/do a kickflip or whatever else he wants to do besides pass the ball to said decoy runner.

 

[user_nat]

Lewis ran behind about 3 team mates before throwing that forward pass.. Gus even mentioned it.

People run behind players all the time.

 

[No BS!!]

For as long as I can remember you can't run behind your teammate, simple as that.

news to me.

 

[Rod]

I guess I should have been more clear, you can't run behind your teammate when he is involved in the play as well. Most of the time this involvement will constitute running a decoy. As I said, every week in the NRL, we see ball-carriers running behind decoys coming through on a different angle, and they have to stop and give themselves up or be penalised because the defence shouldn't have to contend with the ball-carrier running around the decoy. Forget the 'was he impeded' questions because that starts going into the ridiculous 'trying to read the defence's mind' territory that we entered into with the Inglis try. As soon as Hodges runs behind an also-running Hannant it's a penalty.

The difference between that and the others that you don't see penalised (ie. Lewis) is that in these cases the other attackers will be standing stationary, not trying to get involved in the play. If they aren't obstructing a potential defender and aren't moving or getting involved then yeah obviously that's not a penalty, we also see that every week at NRL level.

 

[Slammin]

I guess I should have been more clear, you can't run behind your teammate when he is involved in the play as well.

Do you just make up your own rules as you go along to feed your anger? If NSW followed the rules you'd understand why you lost fair and square again.

Surprised there isn't a thread with "Farah should never play again for giving up" but it would be too hard to blame yourselves for your own loss. I would be livid if a QLDer gave up on a play and tried to milk a penalty and so would Mal and that prick wouldn't play origin again. You morons will probably give Farah captaincy as he outdid Gallen on pure whinging last night.

Anyway here is Harrigan teaching you morons why you are morons.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/league/...d-by-steve-clark/story-fn31yxah-1226418264937

 

[Trentosaurus]

If Carney or Scott actually made some kind of effort then it would have been ruled no try. But instead they stood there and watched Hodges score. It was a poor defensive read and awarding the try was a great decision.

 

[Parra Pride]

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.

 

[hutch]

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

 

[Rod]

Defensive reads have nothing to do with it.

Exactly, this is the thing everyone seems to be missing. Scott and whoever else was there shouldn't even have to make a 'read'. The onus is not on them to decide what's going to happen if and when Hodges runs behind Hannant. People think if Hannant isn't there then Scott reacts the same way he did and doesn't run straight at Hodges? Please.

 

[Cryptic]

BTW, all the idiots quoting the rule that doesn't exist, please point to it in the current rule book.... I actually ref games sometimes and that's a try, the decoy player doesn't take anyone out, nor does he change his line to impede anyone, the defence moves to him... I could get about ten other tries of the same setup and post them here from this year alone...

NSW lost, stop trying to make excuses... Try actually picking a #7 who can direct a team and stop leaving 80% of it up to your #9....

 

[Parra Pride]

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

Of course defensive reads have something to do with it. One of the first, most basics things you're taught is play to the whistle, not stand and watch because you think a penalty should be given. If the whistle doesn't get blown you play on.