Obstruction Rule [Spoiler]

[Timmah]

I understand people are frustrated, but FIVE threads on the same f**king issue?

It was a try under the current rules - if it was given to Hodges in SOO3, then it's a try tonight.

It SHOULDN'T BE, but it is.

Harrigan needs to go.

 

[gronkathon]

Until next week when someone calls it a no try.

Agree with you on the last poin though and that is the important one

 

[Pugzley]

What was the problem? Tiger's defenders fell for the decoy and commited to the tackle and the bulldogs score.

 

[Marshall_magic]

Basically highlights the joke the obstruction rule is. If Barba goes through the hole created by Ayshford being taken out, then it probably gets pulled back. Whilst they didn't go through the same hole, because Ayshford was taken out, Barba was now unmarked, forcing Utai to come in, and because he does, the winger is now unmarked. If a defender is taken out by a decoy illegally it should be an obstruction irrelevant of whether or not he could've stopped the try, because the rest of the defensive line has to readjust itself.

 

[Clifferd]

What was the problem? Tiger's defenders fell for the decoy and commited to the tackle and the bulldogs score.

As the rule book says, a decoy runner cannot impede with the defense which is what the Bulldogs did.

You also cannot run behind your own player to gain an unfair advantage stopping the defenders from getting to the ball player which is also what the Bulldogs did.

 

[VictoryFC]

As the rule book says, a decoy runner cannot impede with the defense which is what the Bulldogs did.

You also cannot run behind your own player to gain an unfair advantage stopping the defenders from getting to the ball player which is also what the Bulldogs did.

Ayshford bought the decoy hook line and sinker. No issue with the Morris' decoy run. The issue is only with your second point for mine.

 

[Clifferd]

Ayshford bought the decoy hook line and sinker. No issue with the Morris' decoy run. The issue is only with your second point for mine.

As far as I'm concerned ayshford wasn't comitted to the Decoy. Therefore he was impeded and taken out of play.

 

[Timmah]

Morris didn't impede Ayshford, Ayshford chose to make contact with Morris when he didn't have to. :?

 

[Card Shark]

Morris didn't impede Ayshford, Ayshford chose to make contact with Morris when he didn't have to. :?

Ayshford did what he did because he wasn't expecting an obstruction.

Timmah.....your judgement is clouded.

 

[clarency]

He was committed enough to turn his entire body and initiate contact with him.

It's the running behind the player that is the issue.

Ignoring the overcomplication of the rule in the first place.

 

[mongoose]

Ayshford bought the decoy hook line and sinker. No issue with the Morris' decoy run. The issue is only with your second point for mine.

Thats how i saw it. Ayshford made a bad read to tackle the decoy... are people seriously saying he was taken out? lol

call could have gone either way to be honest, it's too up to interpretation

 

[KeepingTheFaith]

If the rules are followed then Pritchard has two options, pass the ball to Morris, cut out ball to the winger.

As the winger was covered, Ayshford did the right thing by assuming Morris would get the ball.

Just like the stripping and grounding rules, the constant off season tweaking over the years has created the mess we find ourselves in now. Get the rules back to being simple and as close to black and white as we can get them.

 

[natheel]

yeh Ayshford took morris fair enough but the running behind Morris was the dodgy part.

There was an eels try against tigers 2 weeks ago where mullaney scored and they went back for obstruction but try was allowed becuse of the depth that mullaney was running he had no way of obstructing. The bulldogs player was pretty much up in the line stood back and ran round morris. Absolutly ridiculous and if Galloways was a try then Farahs should've at least been BOD

 

[Timmah]

The carry-on I've seen is as if Ayshford was flattened by a decoy runner, he wasn't even touched by one, that's what gets me - he contacted Morris and that was it. The run behind is touch and go for mine, nobody is really stopped from doing anything. Ayshford didn't play the whistle.

 

[natheel]

well Bulldogs fans will either deny it or it'll be a 'grey' area issue for them

Tigers fans will be up in the air and rightfully so!

 

[Card Shark]

Ashyford didn't play the whistle.

As I said, your judgment is clouded.

U won with a very lucky try. Stop taking shit.

 

[VictoryFC]

As I said, your judgment is clouded.

U won with a very lucky try. Stop taking shit.

Whats he wrong about? If Ayshford was obstructed, then 90% of decoy runs in the game are obstructions.

 

[clarency]

That's a whole different issue though. Every close game we see a pack of whingers jumping up and down from the losing team complaining that the referees are destroying the game. Cry me a f*cking river.

Wayne Bennett said it best when he pointed out that you can't blame a referee for losing when you allowed the opposing team to get close enough for the referee's decision to be crucial.

 

[Vic Mackey]

The carry-on I've seen is as if Ayshford was flattened by a decoy runner, he wasn't even touched by one, that's what gets me - he contacted Morris and that was it. The run behind is touch and go for mine, nobody is really stopped from doing anything. Ayshford didn't play the whistle.

I initially agreed that it was a try however after watching it and listening to Joey explain why it shouldn't have been allowed I think I agree with him.

The play is a 3 on 3. Ayshford takes Morris as that's his man, once ayshford commits barba wraps around ad the dogs have a 3 on 2, however this is only if Pritchard can get the ball to barba, the only way he can do this is to run BEHIND Morris, therefore he gains the advantage.

The only reason ayshford takes Morris is because it's a 3 on 3 at that stage, only after the 'decoy' (I.e Shepard) do the dogs gain the overlap (I.e advantage)

As they say on the commentary, if you don't see this then you have no grasp of how the game is actually played.

Anyways even though I believe the try was wrongly awarded, I don't blame it at all for the tigers losing.

 

[Geohood]

How dumb can people be to not understand that there is a difference between running behind your own decoy like Prichard did and Prichard possibly passing it behind his decoy. One is an obstruction and one is a perfectly fine thing to do. He took the obstruction option and Ayshford did not make a bad read at all. Prichard made an illegal play and this makes me sick because every week since Hodges did in origin players have stopped themselves from doing it and players have been penalised for it but today for some reason it seemed ok to the ref.