The Bunker

[Nice Beaver]

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

Ahhh it's that easy.

Just find people for the bunker that will rule to your interpretation of the decoy runner......and the next blokes.....and the next one after that and so on.

Because we ALL have the same opinion on the rules when you introduce grey into it, don't we? :crazy:

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

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.

It wasn't. It was a hit up. The player taking the hit up offloaded in the tackle, the ball bounced and was picked up by another player who then passed it directly to Johnson. It was ad-lib play off an offload.

I don't understand how it's "black and white" that this falls into the "block runner" category and not the "running behind a teammate in broken play" category.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

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.

IMO if there was anything "black and white" about this situation it was that Mannering WASN'T a decoy runner.

 

[Tommy Smith]

IMO if there was anything "black and white" about this situation it was that Mannering WASN'T a decoy runner.

He wasn't a decoy runner. Nor were the defence impeded in any way.

Apparently that's not black and white enough for some people.

Perhaps some would like a return to the 'black and white' rulings we had 2-3 years ago where ANY contact with the defensive line by a decoy runner was penalised - be it 30m away from where the try was scored, thus having ZERO effect on the try scoring play.

It led to defenders running into decoy runners to receive a penalty. It was a blight on the game. But thankfully a brief one. Let's hope this 'black and white' ruling disappears rather quickly too.

 

[siv]

Maybe we should read the shepard rule in the rule book

 

[adamkungl]

I'd much rather use common sense within the rules than black and white/zero tolerance kind of rulings.

By 'within the rules' I mean I am ok with phrases in the rulebook which allow for grey areas, eg. "If the decoy runner is deemed by the referee to have no effect on the play...."

 

[TheVelourFog]

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

Michael Morgan caught the ball on the outside of his decoy runner and it was called obstruction

If the decoy runs into the defender, fair enough

If the defender is sucked in and tackles the decoy then I think it should be too bad so sad

 

[Rhino_NQ]

Agree black and white doesn't work. Having the same rule for when you are 2m away from the defence as you are 10m is just ridiculous. You would think having an ex player as an extra official would bring common sense to this but Luke pattern may as well have been watching the afl on another screen with some of the efforts he has come up with

 

[adamkungl]

I also hate how the video ref can rule on line-ball offsides and knockons but not on forward passes.
It's fundamentally the same concept.
If someone wants to have a go at me claiming I'm only saying this because of last weeks robbery, whatever, it has been my opinion for years.

The issues the bunker solves are a small fraction of the issues we have with refereeing - most of which lie in the rulebook, the referees coaching and attitude, and the frequency of use.

It's a huge success if you only look on the surface and ignore everything else.

 

[El Diablo]

I'd much rather use common sense within the rules than black and white/zero tolerance kind of rulings.

we had that and there were too many complaints so that's why it's the way it is now

 

[lockyno1]

Players will get used to the rulings. It isn't hard to not run into the opposition defenders.

 

[Iafeta]

Players will get used to the rulings. It isn't hard to not run into the opposition defenders.

He didn't run into the opposition defenders, or where the defensive line was. He stopped 6-7 metres away and jogged with absolutely no intent.

 

[Iafeta]

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.

Nothing to do with a block play. Both Johnson and Mannering were basically running beside each other, Johnson got the ball inside Mannering and passed behind Mannering 10 metres short of the defensive line. Mannering at no stage gets close to engaging with the defensive line.

 

[Iafeta]

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.



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.

Err, I suggest you read his/hers and my post again. I'm bewildered how you could possibly come up with that interpretation. Perhaps a job in the bunker beckons you.

 

[Leber]

Agree black and white doesn't work. Having the same rule for when you are 2m away from the defence as you are 10m is just ridiculous. You would think having an ex player as an extra official would bring common sense to this but Luke pattern may as well have been watching the afl on another screen with some of the efforts he has come up with

This. The penalty is called "obstruction" because it relates to an attacking player "obstructing" a defending player from making a tackle.

If a player runs a decoy 10 meters away from the defense who wasn't in a position to make a tackle in the first place, then nobody has been obstructed.

2 mt away and a defending players chance of making a tackle is impeded = obstruction
10 mt away and a defending players chance of making a tackle is not impeded = no obstruction.

As long as you aren't impacting the defenders ability to make a tackle, you should be able to run decoys all you want. Especially when you are that far away from the defensive line.

 

[simmo1]

I also hate how the video ref can rule on line-ball offsides and knockons but not on forward passes.
It's fundamentally the same concept.
If someone wants to have a go at me claiming I'm only saying this because of last weeks robbery, whatever, it has been my opinion for years.

The issues the bunker solves are a small fraction of the issues we have with refereeing - most of which lie in the rulebook, the referees coaching and attitude, and the frequency of use.

It's a huge success if you only look on the surface and ignore everything else.

All this bloke has done is sook all year because his team isn't winning.

 

[TheVelourFog]

Players will get used to the rulings. It isn't hard to not run into the opposition defenders.

what about ridiculous situations like Bird in Origin with his theatrical antics? Players who are no hope of getting to the player will run into the nearest defender knowing it will get looked at. And 9/10 it is no try.

 

[Rod]

Nothing to do with a block play. Both Johnson and Mannering were basically running beside each other, Johnson got the ball inside Mannering and passed behind Mannering 10 metres short of the defensive line. Mannering at no stage gets close to engaging with the defensive line.

He didn't pass behind him he ran behind him, huge difference.

I think some people seem to be confusing regular 'decoy' plays and talking as if they're now illegal. They're of course still legal if done properly. Don't confuse most 'decoy' or 'block' plays with what Johnson did. He caught the ball and ran behind his own player who was also moving towards the defensive line. Even if most of this took place a few metres back from the defensive line even slightly running behind your own man can be enough to gain an unfair advantage over the defence. It's not a try and I believe hasn't been for a long time.

 

[unforgiven]

Michael Morgan caught the ball on the outside of his decoy runner and it was called obstruction

If the decoy runs into the defender, fair enough

If the defender is sucked in and tackles the decoy then I think it should be too bad so sad

Why should a defender have to account for a player running behind an offside player?
A decoy runner is offside and has absolutely no right to have any impact on the play, including making a defender make the wrong decision. These block plays are a plight on the game and i hope these rulings lead to teams trying other attacking plays.

 

[unforgiven]

I also hate how the video ref can rule on line-ball offsides and knockons but not on forward passes.
It's fundamentally the same concept.
If someone wants to have a go at me claiming I'm only saying this because of last weeks robbery, whatever, it has been my opinion for years.

The issues the bunker solves are a small fraction of the issues we have with refereeing - most of which lie in the rulebook, the referees coaching and attitude, and the frequency of use.

It's a huge success if you only look on the surface and ignore everything else.

How are these even remotely the same concept?