R24 Sun - Warriors v Manly Warringah

[Beavers Headgear]

Having viewed that penalty again, what happened was he initially kicked it forward about 15cms maybe, then got his foot on the other side and rolled it back. Nothing you don't see let go at least 20 times per match.

 

[ManlyFan07]

What they needed to do was not touch Robertson(to get a penalty for a volantary tackle).As soon as you touch a player who is on the ground he is tackled.This applies even if you drag him up in the same motion.The rule might be wrong but that ruling was right.

The rule should be changed so that a player who falls on a ball should be entitled to just stay down. After a second or two the ref can call "surrender" and the tackle is then deemed completed.

That will end the farcical situation of defenders standing there hoping for either a voluntary tackle penalty or the chance to belt the player (and perhaps dislodge the ball) as soon as he tries to move.

 

[effnic]

Congrats on the win today guys, the ref was horrible for both teams but at the end of the day the better team won which is all i care about, good luck for the rest of the year, you guys have a really good team. One more thing that f**king new zealand bloody commentator should be shot someone tell him there are 2 teams playing on the field, the prick made Ben Ikin look unbias.

 

[oneeyedeaglesman]

In that case I guess it was just a case of Lauaki not being smart/cynical enough, he should have just stood over him and waited. Stupid rule though.

It is.Don't like seeing someone just lie there but the player diving on the ball needs to be rewarded.Best to just remove the voluntary tackle rule.

 

[Iafeta]

How bad was that touchy missing Robertson's gridiron pass to Hicks for a try? Shocking!

I'm really confused about the obstruction rule... a year ago, that was definitely on try. Orford sort of hell the ball up and used the decoy player holding up Witt and Swann to buy a bit of time, and I'm still not convinced Swann got a decent shot either way. But the way they've been giving them this year, it's a try.

Personally, I like how Phil Gould once described it in commentary a couple of years ago - "The defender shouldn't have to make a decision on a player who comes through in front of the ball carrier", and from the relative angle you could apply that judgment to that one. I think Gus understands obstruction and sheppard better than any of them, and they should get him in there to clarify it and base the rules off his idea. He's a noob on many parts of the game, but he knows his obstruction plays.

It should have been a try though purely on the way they've ruled them this year.

 

[CharlieF]

How bad was that touchy missing Robertson's gridiron pass to Hicks for a try? Shocking!

I'm really confused about the obstruction rule... a year ago, that was definitely on try. Orford sort of hell the ball up and used the decoy player holding up Witt and Swann to buy a bit of time, and I'm still not convinced Swann got a decent shot either way. But the way they've been giving them this year, it's a try.

Personally, I like how Phil Gould once described it in commentary a couple of years ago - "The defender shouldn't have to make a decision on a player who comes through in front of the ball carrier", and from the relative angle you could apply that judgment to that one. I think Gus understands obstruction and sheppard better than any of them, and they should get him in there to clarify it and base the rules off his idea. He's a noob on many parts of the game, but he knows his obstruction plays.

It should have been a try though purely on the way they've ruled them this year.

 

[CharlieF]

Nobody was in front of the ball carrier. Orford passed the ball to Robertson whilst Watmough was still on his left, not in front. Chris ward has already said that Orford got penalised for the obstruction, not Robertson. He will need to explain that one as it seems he has his own interpretations.

 

[lockyno1]

Look I am probally the only one that agrees with the no-try. In the end were the defenders "denied" a chance to get to Robertson, I would say yes they were, I however don't think they would have got there. 50/50 call and I would not have been surprised either way.

 

[gong_eagle]

Look I am probally the only one that agrees with the no-try. In the end were the defenders "denied" a chance to get to Robertson, I would say yes they were, I however don't think they would have got there. 50/50 call and I would not have been surprised either way.

have a look again, Witt just stood there and looked at Robbo and didn't even try to get to the man

 

[CharlieF]

Lockyno1, With a cut out pass, the defender is denied a chance to get the attacker because they don't know who it will be.

Consider what happened with Manly and Orford in a similar way. Watmough was the man that the cutout pass missed. Chris ward has ruled that the ball went behind Watmough. In other words, the ball was deemed to have been obstructed (I assume from the defenders view) as it made its way from Orfords hands to Robertson. Neither Orford nor Robertson were ever behind Watmough with ball in hand, that is the definition of a shepard. The guy has no clue, honestly. Its not even a 50/50 call.

 

[lockyno1]

have a look again, Witt just stood there and looked at Robbo and didn't even try to get to the man

Witt was denied a opportunity to get him though with the decoy coming through. I am happy with the call to be honest- 50/50 call, it went against you. You always get some calls go your way at home..like Manly get at Brookie. Every side gets them.

 

[Iafeta]

Nobody was in front of the ball carrier. Orford passed the ball to Robertson whilst Watmough was still on his left, not in front. Chris ward has already said that Orford got penalised for the obstruction, not Robertson. He will need to explain that one as it seems he has his own interpretations.

Which one is further to the right in the defensive line, Swann or Witt, he's the one who's impeded under the judgment. Because of the angle, the defender starts to come in to take Watmough, but furthermore can't get to Orford because Orford takes a step sideways and back almost like the perfect soccer hold up play, in fact, a similar motion that young Walsh has done a lot lately which has got him into trouble with forward passes. If Orford passes before that point, it's play on without a doubt in the world.

The player to the left also can't get across to the line that Robertson is about to run.

I didn't have any problems on game day with it, except when you judge it against other try decisions you'd have to say it was at least an inconsistent call.

 

[Iafeta]

Lockyno1, With a cut out pass, the defender is denied a chance to get the attacker because they don't know who it will be.

Consider what happened with Manly and Orford in a similar way. Watmough was the man that the cutout pass missed. Chris ward has ruled that the ball went behind Watmough. In other words, the ball was deemed to have been obstructed (I assume from the defenders view) as it made its way from Orfords hands to Robertson. Neither Orford nor Robertson were ever behind Watmough with ball in hand, that is the definition of a shepard. The guy has no clue, honestly. Its not even a 50/50 call.

I disagree that that is his judgment. I think he has judged Orford to hold up the ball and step back as Watmough goes through to create himself extra time to get it onto the outside runner.

 

[ozbash]

all the defender has to do is reach out and touch the decoy runner and its obstruction.

about 10 weeks back the nrl vid conferenced all the clubs and supposedly sorted this crap out after the warriors copped the same bad call/s.

waste of a good conference..

 

[CharlieF]

I disagree that that is his judgment. I think he has judged Orford to hold up the ball and step back as Watmough goes through to create himself extra time to get it onto the outside runner.

He never ran behind Watmough, so it can't be obstruction. If I am a ball runner and I suddenly stop and my outside man keeps running, does that mean that I am now unable to pass it to the runner further outside of him just in case the defender 2 or 3 men in doesnt get a proper play at him? This is what happened. Forget about where they are coming from, the player with ball in hand was never behind the dummy runner. The ball may have temporarily, but that is not a penalty. Add to this that Watmough did not even touch the defenders.

 

[CharlieF]

Which one is further to the right in the defensive line, Swann or Witt, he's the one who's impeded under the judgment. Because of the angle, the defender starts to come in to take Watmough, but furthermore can't get to Orford because Orford takes a step sideways and back almost like the perfect soccer hold up play, in fact, a similar motion that young Walsh has done a lot lately which has got him into trouble with forward passes. If Orford passes before that point, it's play on without a doubt in the world.

The player to the left also can't get across to the line that Robertson is about to run.

I didn't have any problems on game day with it, except when you judge it against other try decisions you'd have to say it was at least an inconsistent call.

Swann was further to the right (defensively) and watmough ran evenly between Swann and Witt.

 

[CharlieF]

all the defender has to do is reach out and touch the decoy runner and its obstruction.

about 10 weeks back the nrl vid conferenced all the clubs and supposedly sorted this crap out after the warriors copped the same bad call/s.

waste of a good conference..

Maybe Ward was absent.

 

[lockyno1]

If Whatmough stopped before the line, I'd have no dramas, but becuase he ran through the line, then it becomes a 50/50 call.

 

[CharlieF]

If Whatmough stopped before the line, I'd have no dramas, but becuase he ran through the line, then it becomes a 50/50 call.

The NRL needs to make these black and white. I just hope that we don't get too many dud calls like that in real important games.

 

[lockyno1]

That I agree with. I have a big concern with decoy runners all the time as it is legalised cheating to be honest. Decoy runners should stop before the line, or its a penalty, simple.