Hodges Try?

[Cheops]

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.

It was not a poor defensive read at all. Scott and Carney both made decisions based on the fact that Hodges was not allowed to run behind Hannant. If there was an extra QLDer there who received the ball from Hodges and ran through the gap, it would have been a poor read and a perfectly legitimate try.

I'd love to know if anyone can find any examples of a similar try being given, even in the last 18 months because if that's a legitimate play I'd expect 2-3 tries a week minimum scored like that. I can't recall it ever being anything other than a penalty though if the player doesn't give himself up.

 

[xcrap]

No try!

Sharks vs Storm round 10

http://www.nrl.com/Video/2012SmartR...lity=1&type=penaltyconceded&period=2&time=466

Storm player made the decision to come in and tackle the decoy leaving a huge gap for Fifita who ran behind his man, called back for an obstruction.

 

[Bgoodorgoodatit]

thats a perfect example and exactly what im talking about when i say it could revolutionise the game.

nielsen came in on a so called 'bad read' and look at the space that opened up.

it would be open season. i joked to some QLD's sitting next to me at the game that ricky should have instructed pearce and carney to run behind their decoy runners in the second half.

it will be an absolute game changer if the interpretation taken from origin is kept in the season proper.

 

[Mr Fourex]

I think it was just a f*cking shocking piece of defence & a fair try. Reminded me of some of those disgustingly soft tries we let in during that 09 series (Well take your pick from the soft efforts in 06/07/08/09/10/11/12, really)

Who the f*ck are you....you're starting to sound likeable.

 

[Geohood]

No try!

Sharks vs Storm round 10

http://www.nrl.com/Video/2012SmartR...lity=1&type=penaltyconceded&period=2&time=466

Storm player made the decision to come in and tackle the decoy leaving a huge gap for Fifita who ran behind his man, called back for an obstruction.

Exactly. We see it all the time. But apparently because of the 'poor defensive read' it makes it look like it was just soft defence, when it fact it should be a penalty every time, like it has been since.. forever.

 

[Cheops]

No try!

Sharks vs Storm round 10

http://www.nrl.com/Video/2012SmartR...lity=1&type=penaltyconceded&period=2&time=466

Storm player made the decision to come in and tackle the decoy leaving a huge gap for Fifita who ran behind his man, called back for an obstruction.

Exactly. The only difference between that one and the Hodges one is that Beau Scott made a "better" read and nearly made the tackle which gave the impression that Hodges didn't really gain an advantage. Problem was it was still enough to score a try.

 

[Mr Fourex]

Exactly. The only difference between that one and the Hodges one is that Beau Scott made a "better" read and nearly made the tackle which gave the impression that Hodges didn't really gain an advantage. Problem was it was still enough to score a try.

No crybabies......the difference was Beau Scott is a turtle and Hodges embarrassed him with speed. His eyes were on Hodges the whole time and he paid no attention to the QLD player running through

The only thing that impeded Scott was his natural lack of ability.

 

[mongoose]

Each year the rules become less black and white and more up to interpretation.

By the rule book it could very well be a fair try. Farah and Scott were not impeded by the decoy runner. Scott made the decision to step towards Hannant then quickly adjust himself to get in the path of Hodges and was simply too slow. Carney doesn't come into it, he just made a terrible read on the other side of the hole. Hodges ran behind his teammate but in this instance he was not deemed to gain an advantage from it because the defence still had every opportunity to tackle him.

The whole problem is that this play would and has been penalised in other games... Thats the problem with interpretations, people are different.

 

[Rod]

No crybabies......the difference was Beau Scott is a turtle and Hodges embarrassed him with speed. His eyes were on Hodges the whole time and he paid no attention to the QLD player running through

The only thing that impeded Scott was his natural lack of ability.

Hodges is faster than Scott so it should be a try?

You are as simple as they come.

 

[Cheops]

No crybabies......the difference was Beau Scott is a turtle and Hodges embarrassed him with speed. His eyes were on Hodges the whole time and he paid no attention to the QLD player running through

The only thing that impeded Scott was his natural lack of ability.

Yes that's it, he didn't even see Hannant. He just decided to come infield 5 metres when Hodges and the defence were all sliding out for shits and giggles. I'm surprised you only scored 3 tries against a defence like that

 

[Mr Fourex]

 

[Snappy]

Cry some more you sad sacks. :lol:

Yesterday I could sort of understand the whinging after the disappointment of 7 years but now its just getting sad, but amusing at the same time.

 

[Bgoodorgoodatit]

this is why i dont post here often.

too many f**king geniuss.......

this is a discussion about a rule interpretation and its impact on the game of rugby league, not a cry about the outcome of a game.

if you dont have a valid point to make do us all a favour and f**k off

 

[babyg]

I originally thought no try but Hodges ran between Scott and Carney not farah and Scott. Farah was too far away. 50/50

 

[Hutty1986]

:lol: that bloke was the original crying baby when the streak started..its been that long since the blues got up!

 

[veggiepatch1959]

From the 2011 NRL Rule book:


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.

That's the whole problem here - the opinion. While an opinion cannot be considered incorrect, it can be based on misinformation, misinterpretation, poor observation or poor judgement. Opinions generate "grey areas" and this is the primary characteristic of what we are all talking about.

No try.

 

[Bretto]

Try.

While Hodges ran behind his own team mate in Ben Hannant, the defence were not denied the opportunity to make an effective tackle against Hodges. Beau Scott was too slow, Carney was nowhere near it, and Robbie Farah just threw his hands up in the air to complain to the ref instead of attempting to make a tackle.

 

[ShaiGuY]

I have read the rules so many times and I reckon it is screwed:
"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."

Now from how I read that it is only up to the opinion to the referee in try situations. So for other situations it is black and white? It is just stupid and needs to be fixed up. What Hodges did should not be allowed whatever the rules say.

 

[Bretto]

a) It is the responsibility of the decoy runner/s not to interfere with the defending team.

Okay, Hannant didn't.

b) The ball runner cannot run behind his own team and gain an advantage.

Hodges didn't gain an advantage from running behind Hannant. He gained an advantage by Beau Scott being slow as shit, and Robbie Farah complaining to the ref instead of playing to the whistle.

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

Beau Scott was commited to Hannant for a brief second.

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.

Obviously the play had no effect in the refs opinion, and several of the black and white rules would back that opinion up.

 

[Alderley Rooster]

a) It is the responsibility of the decoy runner/s not to interfere with the defending team.

Okay, Hannant didn't.

b) The ball runner cannot run behind his own team and gain an advantage.

Hodges didn't gain an advantage from running behind Hannant. He gained an advantage by Beau Scott being slow as shit, and Robbie Farah complaining to the ref instead of playing to the whistle.

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

Beau Scott was commited to Hannant for a brief second.

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.

Obviously the play had no effect in the refs opinion, and several of the black and white rules would back that opinion up.

Seriously yopu have NFI. Of course he gained an advantage because NSW were defending the decoy runner and JT who was expected to get the ball. By RUNNING BEHIND HIS OWN PLAYER he went straight into a gap created beacuse defenders were marking players who might get the ball.

Illegal play. No try EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK