The Bunker

[Nice Beaver]

They are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

As soon as its left open to interpretation they get slaughtered because what they perceive as an impediment, another person may not.

Yes, having it black and white will certainly mean some decisions are made that are not "common sense", but I'd rather have it that way and know the result every time rather than waiting for the decision at the whim of a video ref who bases a decision on opinion rather than the letter of the law.

At some stage a line has to be drawn where its just a yes or no situation with no grey in between.

 

[Rod]

So what about all the times over the weekend in broken field play when players jinked in and across the line, running behind players? It's obstruction if you are obstructed. It's really simple. No player was impeded so the play had no impact on the fact the Knights defence sucked. Most kicks now must be ruled obstruction. Guys are going downtown and I doubt very much that there aren't at least 5 a game where technically he receives the ball inside of the downtown player.

Difference is one of them involves active decoy runners who's whole point is to fool the defence, whereas the other is running behind blokes who are stationary (although there can be obstruction in this situation too just not every time like the first scenario).

 

[Rhino_NQ]

morris was in

 

[Iafeta]

Difference is one of them involves active decoy runners who's whole point is to fool the defence, whereas the other is running behind blokes who are stationary (although there can be obstruction in this situation too just not every time like the first scenario).

Rubbish. What a lot of rot. The guy coming back midfield knows he can't do it running ahead of his players so very much often deliberately he swerves behind the player creating the textbook definition of an obstruction. It buys the player time and space and allows him to get midfield. This is the textbook definition of creating and taking an advantage. These should be penalised, but because it doesn't go to the bunker, never are.

 

[Iafeta]

They are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

As soon as its left open to interpretation they get slaughtered because what they perceive as an impediment, another person may not.

Yes, having it black and white will certainly mean some decisions are made that are not "common sense", but I'd rather have it that way and know the result every time rather than waiting for the decision at the whim of a video ref who bases a decision on opinion rather than the letter of the law.

At some stage a line has to be drawn where its just a yes or no situation with no grey in between.

Watch Tony Archer back track quicker than Usain Bolt when he's ducking for cover if it costs a team a finals match or a rep match. They have an opportunity to realise this has not worked. Personally given we thumped a dreadful Newcastle team by 30, it matters little to me whether Lolohea is awarded the try or not. But if it costs a team a finals match with such a lack of common sense it will be on for young and old.

I am fine with black and white, with common sense. However, stopping 6-7 metres ahead of a defensive line who change no course whatsoever and allowing players to cut back behind attacking players religiously as a rite of passage is ridiculous to the extreme. Whether or not the decision is as bad as the horrific no try call against the Roosters, or the try being awarded to Tedesco in round 1 after an almighty knock on by Moses, that's about all that's debatable on this one.

 

[Card Shark]

They are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

As soon as its left open to interpretation they get slaughtered because what they perceive as an impediment, another person may not.

Yes, having it black and white will certainly mean some decisions are made that are not "common sense", but I'd rather have it that way and know the result every time rather than waiting for the decision at the whim of a video ref who bases a decision on opinion rather than the letter of the law.

At some stage a line has to be drawn where its just a yes or no situation with no grey in between.

Well said.

The more black & white, the better.

 

[Maximus]

They are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

As soon as its left open to interpretation they get slaughtered because what they perceive as an impediment, another person may not.

Yes, having it black and white will certainly mean some decisions are made that are not "common sense", but I'd rather have it that way and know the result every time rather than waiting for the decision at the whim of a video ref who bases a decision on opinion rather than the letter of the law.

At some stage a line has to be drawn where its just a yes or no situation with no grey in between.

Yep. The biggest whingers when it was left open to interpretation are the same people who are whinging now that it is a black and white rule. Nothing will ever be good enough for these people.

Rubbish. What a lot of rot. The guy coming back midfield knows he can't do it running ahead of his players so very much often deliberately he swerves behind the player creating the textbook definition of an obstruction. It buys the player time and space and allows him to get midfield. This is the textbook definition of creating and taking an advantage. These should be penalised, but because it doesn't go to the bunker, never are.

Did you ever bother reading what he wrote? Either you are too stupid to comprehend it, or you are just ignoring other people's arguments. I'm going with the former.

 

[Tommy Smith]

Maximus, did you think it was a no try?

 

[unforgiven]

They have been ruling it this way all year and it has finally brought some consistency and clarity to the obstruction rule.

Forget whether anyone was 'obstructed'. If you don't want to be called for it don't run behind a decoy runner.

Which is exactly the way these should be ruled. Either do them without running behind an offside player or run a different play and add some variety to the game.

 

[applesauce]

I find the bagging of the video ref/bunker odd and that if we had 1 ref, 2 touchies only, there would be more incorrect calls and more complaints than now.

 

[Nice Beaver]

Maximus, did you think it was a no try?

The point is, when they leave it open to "common sense" and the videonref rules on his "common sense" call, we'll have everyone on here whinging that he got it wrong because "How can he possibly think that was a try/no try".

Take out the grey area of it and the coaches and players will just have to know that its not on in any shape or form when scoring a try.

It will cost teams tries no doubt.

But at least its EXACTLY the same for all and not open to interpretation. Plain and simple.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Everyone keeps saying how this was "black and white" and "not open to interpretation" but I don't understand how.

The whole problem with that decision is (a) it hasn't been applied consistently at all so far this season (because that would be absurd) and (b) it won't be applied consistently at all (because it was absurd).

If someone could clearly explain to me the "black and white rule" that was breached and how that's going to be implemented consistently this season I would be happy to hear it.

 

[cleary89]

It has been. If you catch the ball inside the block runner its no try. Been that way all season.

 

[Rod]

Everyone keeps saying how this was "black and white" and "not open to interpretation" but I don't understand how.

The whole problem with that decision is (a) it hasn't been applied consistently at all so far this season (because that would be absurd) and (b) it won't be applied consistently at all (because it was absurd).

If someone could clearly explain to me the "black and white rule" that was breached and how that's going to be implemented consistently this season I would be happy to hear it.

I obviously haven't seen every single game this year but every try I have seen that has been sent upstairs for obstruction they have clearly checked that the ball-carrier received the pass outside the decoy runner, and multiple times when this hasn't happened they've disallowed the try straight away on that basis alone. I can't claim that they have done this every single time because I don't know for sure but it very much seems to me like it's been a target for the NRL this year to clean up this grey area.

I don't see why either scenario you mentioned above is particularly absurd if they stay strict and consistent on this.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

It has been. If you catch the ball inside the block runner its no try. Been that way all season.

Define "block runner".

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

I obviously haven't seen every single game this year but every try I have seen that has been sent upstairs for obstruction they have clearly checked that the ball-carrier received the pass outside the decoy runner, and multiple times when this hasn't happened they've disallowed the try straight away on that basis alone. I can't claim that they have done this every single time because I don't know for sure but it very much seems to me like it's been a target for the NRL this year to clean up this grey area.

I don't see why either scenario you mentioned above is particularly absurd if they stay strict and consistent on this.

Define "decoy runner".

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Aren't "decoy runner" and "block runner" terms used by coaches when they construct set plays? Didn't Johnson receive the ball in broken play off the back of an offload that went to ground, therefore nullifying any concepts of "decoy runner" or "block runner" and making it more akin to a player running behind his own teammate in broken play, which happens all the time?

 

[cleary89]

From memory it was a standard block play and johnson caught the ball on the inside of the man. I agree no one was obstructed but i really like the consistency.

 

[Rod]

Define "decoy runner".

I guess something like an attacking player running at the defensive line with the possibility of either receiving the ball or fooling the defence into thinking they are.

 

[POPEYE]

What does it matter where players run, find people to occupy the Bunker capable of deciding whether or not a defender was impeded enough to reach an attacker . . . won't be long before we have players throwing their hands up and forget defending altogether akin the Gallop Game