Obstruction Rule [Spoiler]

[HowHigh]

Can someone please tell me the definition of obstruction?
If that wasn't obstruction then I don't know what is.
They need to fix that rule, absolutely terrible decision, no consistency with it.

 

[WayneBennett]

Its like when your dog eats a tennis ball and cant poop

 

[carlosthedwarf]

Needs to be changed. Run behind a team mate - penalty. Make it black and white so there's no confusion.

That decision tonight was disgraceful.

 

[clarency]

It's based off of a player impeding another, like when the attacking player runs into the defending player.

Which is exactly what we did not see. The ref got it right.

The attacking decoy ran through, granted very close to the player with the ball, but did not make contact with any defending player. It was the tigers defender who turned and made contact with the decoy. That is why it was not obstruction.

Whether you think the rule needs to be changed is another matter altogether.

 

[Billythekid]

It's based off of a player impeding another, like when the attacking player runs into the defending player.

Which is exactly what we did not see. The ref got it right.

The attacking decoy ran through, granted very close to the player with the ball, but did not make contact with any defending player. It was the tigers defender who turned and made contact with the decoy. That is why it was not obstruction.

Whether you think the rule needs to be changed is another matter altogether.

Were you even watching the game? Didn't make contact with a defender, what a silly comment. I've read some dumb stuff from bunniesman and haynetrain on here but frankly you just topped the pile imo.

 

[ceagle]

It's based off of a player impeding another, like when the attacking player runs into the defending player.

Which is exactly what we did not see. The ref got it right.

The attacking decoy ran through, granted very close to the player with the ball, but did not make contact with any defending player. It was the tigers defender who turned and made contact with the decoy. That is why it was not obstruction.

Whether you think the rule needs to be changed is another matter altogether.

Never go full genius

 

[Walt Flanigan]

Could be the worst decision of the year.

 

[ME SO HORNBY!]

It's based off of a player impeding another, like when the attacking player runs into the defending player.

Which is exactly what we did not see. The ref got it right.

The attacking decoy ran through, granted very close to the player with the ball, but did not make contact with any defending player. It was the tigers defender who turned and made contact with the decoy. That is why it was not obstruction.

Whether you think the rule needs to be changed is another matter altogether.

Sean Hampstead?

 

[Clifferd]

It's based off of a player impeding another, like when the attacking player runs into the defending player.

Which is exactly what we did not see. The ref got it right.

The attacking decoy ran through, granted very close to the player with the ball, but did not make contact with any defending player. It was the tigers defender who turned and made contact with the decoy. That is why it was not obstruction.

Whether you think the rule needs to be changed is another matter altogether.

Are you f**king dumb?

 

[clarency]

I didn't say they didn't make contact.

I said that the defender made the decision to turn his body and make a brief attempt at a tackle, which does not qualify as the decoy runner impeding the defence.

That's how I saw it as it happened. Every replay confirmed it.

Again... Im not saying that should be ok, but as the rules currently are it is ok.

 

[***MH***]

Make of this what you will....

http://www.sportingpulse.com/assoc_page.cgi?c=1-6623-0-0-0&sID=108353

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.

Me thinks the man up in the box has ticked off step d) and step g)

 

[Ladmate]

He ran behind the player, the player didn't play at him because you can't run behind someone! It's a shit call.

 

[Slackboy72]

Basically the rule states that a player in an offside position (a player on the same team as the ball carrier but ahead of him on the field) impedes an opposition player.
The player with the ball does not have to run behind that offside player at all. The offside player just needs to impede a player who could make a tackle.

 

[Pedro Collins]

I've been a rugby league fan for over 35 years and never seen a worse decision. Cost the Tigers an 8 spot even though they would have struggled. If anyone can defend that decision they need more than an eyesight check and have an alternative agenda. JOKE.

 

[Jason Maher]

Ridiculous, almost self-contradictory rule. And applied in such an inconsistent manner it's a lucky dip, like a number of other stupid rules (e.g. grounding the ball).

 

[ek999]

Make of this what you will....

http://www.sportingpulse.com/assoc_page.cgi?c=1-6623-0-0-0&sID=108353


Me thinks the man up in the box has ticked off step d) and step g)

I think (d) maybe if he thought it was a bad decision by the defence but no way it's a try

 

[boonboon]

Horrible horrible call and after denying tigers a try on the Farah try that at worst was benefit of the Doubt cost tigers 2 points he deserves to never ref in nrl again

 

[Spanner in the works]

Anyone have the footage? I missed the game.

 

[gronkathon]

You give the rule enough scope for interpretation and possible excuses and you end up with the situation we have now with the obstruction call.

Lets take tonight out of it as it is very fresh and turned out to be influential on the result.

In saying that there have been so many occasions this season where the decision gets sent upstairs and its a lottery what comes back, every week you adapt your interpretation allowing for what you have seen and every week it changes

 

[kurt faulk]

Needs to be changed. Run behind a team mate - penalty. Make it black and white so there's no confusion.

That decision tonight was disgraceful.

They tried that a few years ago and it totally screwed up the game. If everyone on earth except the video ref knew that was obstruction, the problem isn't the rule. Useless video refs are the problem.

.