Hodges Try?

[Noa]

Can see why they awarded it and have no problems wit it really.

bit worried about the flow-on effect to th nrl over the next couple of years though

 

[Frank_Grimes]

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.

It's actually spurious logic. Are we to believe that if one famous QLDr thinks it wasn't a try, all QLDrs must? Simple reasoning for the simple minded I guess.....

 

[Bgoodorgoodatit]

to say that hodges didnt gain an advantage over the defence by running behind his decoy runner is absurd. it created extra space for him to run thus creating an advantage.

the whole point of using decoy runners is to create an advantage over the defence. whether it be through creating an overlap or more space in which to run. if there was no advantage to be gained then no team would use decoy runners at all.

 

[Doga]

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

This. Every coach in the NRL should be adding to their playbook.

 

[Big Pete]

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.

You mean generalised & assumed.

My point was pretty clear but once again you missed it. Wally is highly regarded as a player but not as a commentator. I don't know anybody on here who rates him on the latter. He plays the diplomat & he often sides with the rest of the commentators. It didn't surprise me at all to see him side with the rest of the commentary team who happen to be Blue.

He's entitled to say what he wants but it's largely irrelevant to this topic. It holds as much weight as any other opinion on here.

 

[firechild]

It's actually spurious logic. Are we to believe that if one famous QLDr thinks it wasn't a try, all QLDrs must? Simple reasoning for the simple minded I guess.....

No, you don't necessarily have to agree with anyone. However, cognitive dissonance relates to the fact that noone even wanted to acknowledge the fact and instead wanted to claim that it was only NSW fans that believed it was not a try when that clearly was not the case. By acknowledging that Lewis believed it should have been a no try their argument that it was just NSW having a whinge goes out the window.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

No, you don't necessarily have to agree with anyone. However, cognitive dissonance relates to the fact that noone even wanted to acknowledge the fact and instead wanted to claim that it was only NSW fans that believed it was not a try when that clearly was not the case. By acknowledging that Lewis believed it should have been a no try their argument that it was just NSW having a whinge goes out the window.

Where has anyone claimed it's only NSW fans that believe it was not a try? There are in fact several NSW fans who think it was a try - some even in this thread.

 

[firechild]

Where has anyone claimed it's only NSW fans that believe it was not a try? There are in fact several NSW fans who think it was a try - some even in this thread.

How is it relevent that some NSW fans believe it was a try? I think you'll find that is simply a sympton of NSW being generally more subjective. If a decision goes against QLD you will find that to a man, Queenslanders believe the call is wrong but when a call goes against NSW you will find plenty who have no problem with the call (there were even plenty of NSW fans saying the Inglis try in game 1 was fair enough).

 

[Karl]

Just because someone who is a Queenslander thinks it wasn't a try doesn't make them right.

 

[Spot On]

Don't have a problem with it as long as all the similar incidents/tries that happen for the rest of the season are awarded.

It will be interesting to see the reaction of some in this thread if their team is involved in a semi this year and the opposition score a try in a similar circumstance, clinching the game in the process.

It will be interesting to see the reaction of some in this thread if their team is involved in a semi this year and their team scores a try in a similar circumstance but it is disallowed.

Precedence has been set in front of a massive audience and must now be consistently applied. Will be interesting to see if teams now push this rule to the limit in coming weeks.

 

[firechild]

Just because someone who is a Queenslander thinks it wasn't a try doesn't make them right.

I never said that was the case. In fact I haven't stated an opinion on the ruling, just made an observation regarding the reaction of Queenslanders.

 

[Doga]

You mean generalised & assumed.

My point was pretty clear but once again you missed it. Wally is highly regarded as a player but not as a commentator. I don't know anybody on here who rates him on the latter. He plays the diplomat & he often sides with the rest of the commentators. It didn't surprise me at all to see him side with the rest of the commentary team who happen to be Blue.

He's entitled to say what he wants but it's largely irrelevant to this topic. It holds as much weight as any other opinion on here.

I don't think anyone has ever called Sterlo biased when it comes to his commentary.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

How is it relevent that some NSW fans believe it was a try? I think you'll find that is simply a sympton of NSW being generally more subjective. If a decision goes against QLD you will find that to a man, Queenslanders believe the call is wrong but when a call goes against NSW you will find plenty who have no problem with the call (there were even plenty of NSW fans saying the Inglis try in game 1 was fair enough).

You said that posters in here are claiming that only NSW fans believe it wasn't a try due to their "cognitive dissonance" when clearly that isn't true.

Now you're just making generalisations after your attempt to introduce fancy words to the discussion backfired.

 

[Zigwaa]

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.

I think B is the more important point. IMO Hodges gained an advantage from running behind his own player, that should have decided it was not try, poor defensive read or not.

 

[Big Pete]

Doga - Where did I ever say otherwise?

 

[Doga]

Doga - Where did I ever say otherwise?

here

It didn't surprise me at all to see him side with the rest of the commentary team who happen to be Blue.

 

[Big Pete]

Is Sterlo not from NSW?

Gus was very vocal during the whole video ref. process. Even Blues fans cannot deny how bias he can be towards NSW.

If you listen to the commentary again, Lewis specifically agrees with what Gus is saying. Which was the basis of my point. The presence of two other NSWmen only strengthens that argument.

Again, Wally like anyone else is entitled to his opinion. I don't know why it should influence mine.

 

[Blood Shot Eyes]

You have always been able to run behind a teammate.

Or throw punches when your on top of them.....:lol:

 

[Johns Magic]

I was fine with it being called a try. Then again, there have been a lot of other "obstructions" that I have been fine with that have been pulled up. That's the problem.

 

[LineBall]

You said that posters in here are claiming that only NSW fans believe it wasn't a try due to their "cognitive dissonance" when clearly that isn't true.

Now you're just making generalisations after your attempt to introduce fancy words to the discussion backfired.

This.