Ref and Bunker Decisions

[Iamback]

Looks like he stopped in the line...

He can't disappear though, If the 14 moves with the 17 the gap isn't there in the 1st place.

It is different if the defender is in the line and the play goes behind them

 

[Iamback]

Legend calls for ‘common sense’ as Bunker back in spotlight after ‘black and white’ rule exploited

Legend calls for ‘common sense’ as Bunker back in spotlight after ‘black and white’ rule exploited

www.foxsports.com.au

I lol'd at Laurie Daley's comments. I mean how do you define "common sense"? He's starting to take up the mantle from Phil Gould

DCE summed it up perfectly. Players are now playing for plays to comeback due to a black and write rule.

Broncs v Souffs. Keppie is out of the play, Haas runs into him and Broncs get the penalty for obstruction.

 

[Bazal]

He can't disappear though, If the 14 moves with the 17 the gap isn't there in the 1st place.

It is different if the defender is in the line and the play goes behind them

He doesn't have to disappear if he's not there in the first place and it blows my mind that people ignore that point.

He had no right to be there at all. That's the rule

 

[kurt faulk]

Legend calls for ‘common sense’ as Bunker back in spotlight after ‘black and white’ rule exploited

Legend calls for ‘common sense’ as Bunker back in spotlight after ‘black and white’ rule exploited

www.foxsports.com.au

I lol'd at Laurie Daley's comments. I mean how do you define "common sense"? He's starting to take up the mantle from Phil Gould.

Funny how he puts no blame at all to the player. The decoy run is the simplest rule in the book, run to the inside shoulder of the defender and don't stop in the defensive line. Jake did the opposite of both. There are so many dumb players in the league it's not funny.

.

 

[skeepe]

Said it in the match day thread and I'll repeat and expand on it here.

We shouldn't be asking the referees to make what are going to be subjective judgement calls on whether a player would or wouldn't have been capable of making a particular tackle.

Those calling for common sense yesterday, what would you like the referee to take into consideration? How would the deliberation go?

"Well, Moretti was denied the opportunity, but he wasn't going to get there anyway and Tom Trbojevic usually busts through tackles like that so even if he did get there, the chances of him making the tackle are pretty small."

So we rule no obstruction based on that.

But what if it wasn't Moretti? What if it was someone like Jack Wighton - faster and a better defender? And what if it wasn't Tom Trbojevic, but, say, Lachlan Croker running through the gap. Is it now an obstruction because Wighton is - in my subjective opinion - more likely to make the tackle? So now whether a player is obstructing the defence depends wholly and solely on a referee's subjective opinion of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the players involved?

No thank you.

 

[Apey]

Yeah look #14 in my mind had zero intention of even trying to tackle Tom but Jake gave the Eels an out by afking in the line. Some blame needs to go on Tom for running where his brother was loafing around in the defensive line, too.

Pass was back though. Tom stretched his arms out and threw it backwards. If he'd thrown it forwards at that pace and that distance, the Manly player wouldn't have been anywhere near catching it. Hard to show in still frames but you can tell by the way the point of the ball is facing.





An amazing pass, actually.

 

[Danny-Boy]

There was no forward pass and there was no obstruction. The video ref f**ked up deluxe.

Tom doesn’t run into a gap created by Jake blocking a player. Tom runs into the gap because an eels player ran out of the line and the other eels player didn’t cover. At no point was the player denied an opportunity to make a tackle.

 

[Bgoodorgoodatit]

I think the other thing that i haven't even seen mentioned is that even if he had clocked off and couldn't get there he was denied an opportunity to clock back on and close the gap cause Jake's fat ass was taking a nap in the line. even those split seconds where tom cuts back to the inside if the defender is obstructed either visually or physically it makes a difference. They all talk about 'oh he was never getting there' but how do we know that? maybe Jake runs though like he should have and the defender is able to read the play earlier doesn't clock off and keeps pushing across and makes the tackle. and maybe he doesn't.. But we'll never know cause Jake f**ked up. should not have been there plain and simple and likely cost his team a try.

 

[Iamback]

There was no forward pass and there was no obstruction. The video ref f**ked up deluxe.

Tom doesn’t run into a gap created by Jake blocking a player. Tom runs into the gap because an eels player ran out of the line and the other eels player didn’t cover. At no point was the player denied an opportunity to make a tackle.

That is how I see it, IF the Eels player made a genuine attempt at a tackle and was stopped then obstruction.

The game is rewarding bad play

 

[Iamback]

I think the other thing that i haven't even seen mentioned is that even if he had clocked off and couldn't get there he was denied an opportunity to clock back on and close the gap cause Jake's fat ass was taking a nap in the line. even those split seconds where tom cuts back to the inside if the defender is obstructed either visually or physically it makes a difference. They all talk about 'oh he was never getting there' but how do we know that? maybe Jake runs though like he should have and the defender is able to read the play earlier doesn't clock off and keeps pushing across and makes the tackle. and maybe he doesn't.. But we'll never know cause Jake f**ked up. should not have been there plain and simple and likely cost his team a try.

Again though where does Jake go? It isn't like he was standing in no mans land way in front of the ruck

He had DCE closer to the try line, Had a few other Manly players almost in line with him.

It became an issue once the player missed his assignment and put his arms up instead of trying to cut the play off

 

[Iamback]

Said it in the match day thread and I'll repeat and expand on it here.

We shouldn't be asking the referees to make what are going to be subjective judgement calls on whether a player would or wouldn't have been capable of making a particular tackle.

Those calling for common sense yesterday, what would you like the referee to take into consideration? How would the deliberation go?

"Well, Moretti was denied the opportunity, but he wasn't going to get there anyway and Tom Trbojevic usually busts through tackles like that so even if he did get there, the chances of him making the tackle are pretty small."

So we rule no obstruction based on that.

But what if it wasn't Moretti? What if it was someone like Jack Wighton - faster and a better defender? And what if it wasn't Tom Trbojevic, but, say, Lachlan Croker running through the gap. Is it now an obstruction because Wighton is - in my subjective opinion - more likely to make the tackle? So now whether a player is obstructing the defends depends wholly and solely on a referee's subjective opinion of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the players involved?

No thank you.

It isn't that hard.

Did x defender make a genuine attempt to stop the play?

If no, then it is a try

If yes. No try

Again we have 2 occasions this season where the bunker has said Jerome Hughes has made a defensive error and tries have been called back as a result.

 

[Bazal]

That is how I see it, IF the Eels player made a genuine attempt at a tackle and was stopped then obstruction.

The game is rewarding bad play

Yet you want to reward Jake's bad play?

Weird take

 

[Bgoodorgoodatit]

The problem is defender x was not afforded a genuine attempt to stop the play cause jakes fat ass stopped in the line.. Regardless of it was a a genuine attempt or not. Split seconds matter.

And to you question above. That's easy run though on the inside shoulder and don't stop in the line. Where's he supposed to go? not where he was that's for sure.. haha

 

[JokerEel]

He can't disappear though, If the 14 moves with the 17 the gap isn't there in the 1st place.

It is different if the defender is in the line and the play goes behind them

Yeah nah...

Maybe go back and start watching league from 5 years until now....

 

[SBD82]

@Vee

Can you give me some feedback on one of the North Qld tries against the Dragons on the weekend? (Kind of curious if I’m just being one eyed).

Cowboys player is tackled low. Arm carrying the ball hits the ground short of the line with tackler still connected. Momentum seems to be moving him forward as he turns over onto his front and extends his arm, all in one motion. He scores.

Double movement?

 

[Vee]

If it's the KF try you're thinking of, I was surprised it wasn't scrutinised more closely. As you said, there was both momentum AND a promotion of the ball by extending the arm. I was at least a dozen beers deep by that stage, only thing I could suggest is that in their opinion he would have scored with momentum alone, not sure how far over the line the ball finished.

 

[gerg]

We can't be relying on the referees to determine intent or whether a player would have made a tackle. A few years ago Gould was whinging about this very same topic and the referees stupidly listened to him. Obstruction decisions became an absolute lottery and it wasn't long before Gould was whinging again. Remember how he'd always crap on about how he would fix the obstruction laws. He ****ing caused the problem.

The best thing the NRL and referees could do is completely ignore him and his channel 9 colleagues. I'm all for having more black and white rules in the game and consistently applying them.

 

[Diesel]

My problem with the bunker is the idiots in the media going on about decisions that are called all season but because their favorite team or player is on the end of the "bad call "it's the end of the world....

Or the clowns commentating that you strongly suspect have a few pineapples on a result

 

[Diesel]

Since the bunker scrutinises every single try, should the ref just award the try if they’re not sure, and let the bunker decide? -if the bunker is unsure just award it.

The referees on field decision sways the bunkers result

 

[Danny-Boy]

We can't be relying on the referees to determine intent or whether a player would have made a tackle. A few years ago Gould was whinging about this very same topic and the referees stupidly listened to him. Obstruction decisions became an absolute lottery and it wasn't long before Gould was whinging again. Remember how he'd always crap on about how he would fix the obstruction laws. He ****ing caused the problem.

The best thing the NRL and referees could do is completely ignore him and his channel 9 colleagues. I'm all for having more black and white rules in the game and consistently applying them.

Why not? Referees determine intent with almost everything. Penalty tries, double movements, playing or not playing at the ball, high shots, foul play…..the list goes on.

The problem with black and white is you’re gonna get players like that parra neville hiding behind opposition players and waving their arms about Mitch Moses style every time a break is made or a try is scored.