Hodges Try?

[Doga]

The only way this would have been a penalty is if Hodges was judged to have gained advantage from running behind the path of Hannant. IMO he didn't.

The video ref and his boss share that opinion - in the end, the only ones who really matter as it's on the scoreboard with the tick of approval. The rest is just noise.

Yup. Just noise.

 

[carcharias]

Because they were calling the game yeah?

what not enough QLDers there for him to tell the truth?

was wally lying now?

 

[RecordBreakingMaroons.]

Flabbergasted that some on here cant see any problem with it.

Once again one more time for the dummies. The real issue with what Hodges did relates to Carney. Carney makes a defensive decision to move up on Thurston because under the rule book Hodges has to pass to either Hannant or JT. Thus my moving up he leaves a hole into which Hodges runs into thus Hodges clearly gains an advantage from running behind his own teammate.

I agree with one poster on here who says that this now sets a dangerous precedent.

Both Stuart and Gallen want Origin to be judged by a different set of rules to the NRL.

I hope that they enjoy the downside to that way of thinking.

 

[carcharias]

Both Stuart and Gallen want Origin to be judged by a different set of rules to the NRL.

I hope that they enjoy the downside to that way of thinking.

What ..they want the rules that are used every week in the NRL instead ?

 

[Bluebags1908]

I'm not too sure if it was a try or not, I'll need to have another look at it.

But NSW fans should be more worried about what happened before this that led the Queensland gaining field position for them to score the try in the first place - Todd Carney kicking the ball out on the full and a penalty on the half way. Unforgiveable. If this didn't happen then Queensalnd don't score the try.

 

[RecordBreakingMaroons.]

What ..they want the rules that are used every week in the NRL instead ?

Gallen questioned experienced NRL refs, as to how many Origin games had they refereed. The connotation being that things are done differently in Origin.

Well, if that comes-back to bite them on the arse, so be it.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

Flabbergasted that some on here cant see any problem with it.

Once again one more time for the dummies. The real issue with what Hodges did relates to Carney. Carney makes a defensive decision to move up on Thurston because under the rule book Hodges has to pass to either Hannant or JT. Thus my moving up he leaves a hole into which Hodges runs into thus Hodges clearly gains an advantage from running behind his own teammate.

FMD no he doesn't. Read the rules, they're in this very thread. Carney got to Hodges, and was promptly fended away.

 

[Big Pete]

what not enough QLDers there for him to tell the truth?

was wally lying now?

These are my thoughts...

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.

 

[beave]

IMO Beau Scott actually read the play a little too well and needed to square up and let Hannant run into him to create contact and fall to ground to get the penalty but instead he kept sliding to his right and wasn't really impeded physically. I can see why both sets of fans have the opinions that they do but rule/game is so hard to officiate, you get these grey areas that will ineviatably leave someone disappointed. The whole not being able to run behind a player if you have the ball is ridiculous, 90% of run arounds would be illegal if you applied that rule.

 

[beave]

And just on Wally, love him as a player but as a commentator he is a f**king dunce.

 

[Bgoodorgoodatit]

The whole not being able to run behind a player if you have the ball is ridiculous, 90% of run arounds would be illegal if you applied that rule.

no they wouldnt. A run around involves passing to the runner and then receiving the ball back after moving behind him. he isnt in possession of the ball when he moves behind the player.

hodges perfomed the perfect run around play without all that pesky passing.

 

[Bgoodorgoodatit]

simple question.

is the purpose of a decoy runner to create an advantage for the attacking team?

if the answer is yes then by moving into space (no matter how big or small and regardless of weather the defender still gets to attempt a tackle) created by running behind the decoy according to the rules is illegal.

how anyone can argue that hodges didnt gain an advantage is beyond me. even if it holds beau scott up for a split second theres an advantage. if carney comes up to make a defensive read on thurston considering he shouldnt have to account for what hodges did, thats an advantage. not taking advantage would be pulling up and surrendering to a tackle as you see every week in the NRL and the ref doesnt blow the penalty.

now if hodges passes its completely different story

i expect bill to back his refs as nothing he says now can change anything.

what im more concerned about is the wider implications in the season regular.

 

[Jono1987]

No try.

Disgraceful decision.

Hopefully clubs run the same play this weekend, can't wait to see which way the particular refs/video refs rule.

Didn't cost NSW the game though.

 

[catgrub]

I'm with the King. No Try.

 

[Karl]

I can see both sides to this one.

Clearly in this case the Refs felt that there was so much distance between where Hodges was running and the defender who the decoy runner ran at, or because the defenders were not impeded, that there was no advantage gained in running behind the decoy runner.

I think the people who have said it was 50/50 (and you need to look at the actual circumstances and where the players were and what they were doing in this particular case, not apply some generic or out of date rule of thumb t it) are probably right. If it happened mid-field and nothing came of it, no-one cares too much, but when a try is scored like that, it's bound to upset at least 50% of the fans.

 

[Cryptic]

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.

Well Lewis did have that stroke... It might have knocked him down the brain capacity of the common blues supporter... Or people have their own opinions... There are NSWmen who thought it was a try too so what's your point?

Oh and in regards to the rules they listed... Wouldn't it be nice if they actually enforced "e"....

 

[Cryptic]

International Laws of the Game, Section 15, Page 40.

The player who is in possession of the ball cannot be guilty of obstruction. He can make use of the goal posts to avoid a tackle, or dodge behind a ruck of his own players or bore a way through his own pack.

Hodges cannot be penalised in this incident as the ball carrier cannot be guilty of obstruction.

Why are you quoting a rule book that isn't in play? He also was 3kg over his starting weight and using fully automatic gears... oh wait... that also doesn't make any sense...

 

[Rod]

(and you need to look at the actual circumstances and where the players were and what they were doing in this particular case, not apply some generic or out of date rule of thumb t it).

I disagree with this, because it is precisely the fact that the rule is now so open to interpretation that we now have a problem and so much disagreement.

The rule change (ie. the video ref having to decide whether the defender was impeded enough to warrant a try being disallowed) makes sense in the usual 'passing' obstructions that we see so often because it is easier to see whether a defender was disadvantaged as the evidence is usually there on the screen.

It doesn't make sense for this rule change to apply in the rarer occasions where the ball-carrier runs behind a decoy runner such as the Hodges one because trying to make a call on whether defenders were possibly impeded basically comes down to reading their minds. As soon as he runs being the decoy runner the defenders are contending with factors that they should never have to deal with, whether they made the wrong read, were lazy, or whatever.

The way they are currently applying the rule, Harrigan always has an out because he can just make up that the referees believe the defenders were not sufficiently impeded to warrant the try being disallowed.

 

[Geohood]

I disagree with this, because it is precisely the fact that the rule is now so open to interpretation that we now have a problem and so much disagreement.

The rule change (ie. the video ref having to decide whether the defender was impeded enough to warrant a try being disallowed) makes sense in the usual 'passing' obstructions that we see so often because it is easier to see whether a defender was disadvantaged as the evidence is usually there on the screen.

It doesn't make sense for this rule change to apply in the rarer occasions where the ball-carrier runs behind a decoy runner such as the Hodges one because trying to make a call on whether defenders were possibly impeded basically comes down to reading their minds. As soon as he runs being the decoy runner the defenders are contending with factors that they should never have to deal with, whether they made the wrong read, were lazy, or whatever.

The way they are currently applying the rule, Harrigan always has an out because he can just make up that the referees believe the defenders were not sufficiently impeded to warrant the try being disallowed.

Exactly.

Hodges shouldn't of been allowed the gap next to Hannant. He should only be allowed to pass to Hannant, pass out the back, or run around him but not run directly into the hole created.

This isn't just about origin, I don't really care, it's the ruling in general.

I guess playmakers won't have to drop down like they are dead anymore like you would see every week, ever again.

 

[Trentosaurus]

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).

I know this was a few pages back, but f**k mine. What a ridiculous generalisation. Congratulations on the most moronic and unfounded statement I've read on these forums. That is a massive effort.