The Bunker

[umina panther]

Reinterpretation is not enforcement. It was a shit call.

The non rake on Mansour in the Panthers v Parr game was worse but you didn't make a thread about that

 

[umina panther]

Hahaha and now a blatant push in the back ignored. Parra do very well with the bunker you sook

 

[_Johnsy]

Hahaha and now a blatant push in the back ignored. Parra do very well with the bunker you sook

Seriously?

That touch wouldn't have knocked the skin off a custard & had no impact on the decision.

 

[Bazal]

The rule is wrong, not the Bunker. They've made it far too black and white. Ma'u ran the inside shoulder line on Morgan, while Norman went into space outside the centre. There was never going to be Amy outcome buy an Eels try from there. A little common sense is needed, they just aren't allowed that it seems

 

[ek999]

The rule is wrong, not the Bunker. They've made it far too black and white. Ma'u ran the inside shoulder line on Morgan, while Norman went into space outside the centre. There was never going to be Amy outcome buy an Eels try from there. A little common sense is needed, they just aren't allowed that it seems

I disagree. I can't see why a defensive team should need to avoid players running into the defensive line when they don't have the ball. If you are going to be a decoy you need to make sure you don't run into a defender

 

[El Diablo]

The rule is wrong, not the Bunker. They've made it far too black and white. Ma'u ran the inside shoulder line on Morgan, while Norman went into space outside the centre. There was never going to be Amy outcome buy an Eels try from there. A little common sense is needed, they just aren't allowed that it seems

last time they gave the refs common sense they came up with multiple inconsistent rulings so they had to go back to what is now

 

[Bazal]

But why should the attacker have to basically fall over to stop? Morgan put himself in a position for Ma'u to make contact. He was rewarded for falling for the decoy. He may not have initiated contact, as the buzz words seem to be regarding obstruction, but he put himself in a position to be contacted. Ma'u ran the right line, he pulled in a defender and the rule penalises that which I think is wrong

 

[El Diablo]

But why should the attacker have to basically fall over to stop? Morgan put himself in a position for Ma'u to make contact. He was rewarded for falling for the decoy. He may not have initiated contact, as the buzz words seem to be regarding obstruction, but he put himself in a position to be contacted. Ma'u ran the right line, he pulled in a defender and the rule penalises that which I think is wrong

and that's because when the refs were allowed to use common sense you'd see that exact same thing happen yet refs sometimes ruled it a try and other times a no try

basically referees are idiots and need black and white rulings because they are brain dead morons who can't be trusted to use common sense

they struggle getting things right as it is with their diminished brain capacity

 

[Parra]

Just play aussie rules and be done with it. Accepting this crap is wrong.

 

[El Diablo]

wtf

 

[Parra]

I'm sick of seeing rugby league screwed with every week. Every time this sort of crap happens it reinforces coaches to stick to 5 hit ups and kick. Boring, predictable play. Anything that makes RL less attractive makes crap like aussie rules a viable alternative. Right now the NRL only exists to f**k up RL. Annoys me.

 

[Simon]

and that's because when the refs were allowed to use common sense you'd see that exact same thing happen yet refs sometimes ruled it a try and other times a no try

basically referees are idiots and need black and white rulings because they are brain dead morons who can't be trusted to use common sense

they struggle getting things right as it is with their diminished brain capacity

Ridiculous comment. Refs are a required part of the game. I'm assuming you haven't put your hand up to be a ref to fix the so called issues. They're human and yes make mistakes but I bet you have also at your job.

Black and white rules make it easy for everyone. Leaving it open to subjective interpretations will always cause problems. It's simple if you're attacking and choose to run a decoy don't interfere with a defender.

 

[El Diablo]

the only thing stupider than an NRL referee is a New Zealander

 

[Bretto]

But why should the attacker have to basically fall over to stop? Morgan put himself in a position for Ma'u to make contact. He was rewarded for falling for the decoy. He may not have initiated contact, as the buzz words seem to be regarding obstruction, but he put himself in a position to be contacted. Ma'u ran the right line, he pulled in a defender and the rule penalises that which I think is wrong

I agree with this.

In this specific situation, Ma'u is still a potential recipient of the ball, not just a decoy runner, so he's running his line perfectly and the defence are drawn to him because he's a possible recipient of the pass to go through the hole he's running.

The fact that the ball doesn't go to him, but it goes out the back to Norman, shouldn't really matter (with some exceptions, obviously).

If Ma'u gets the pass, Morgan likely effects the tackle on him and this conversation doesn't even exist.

If we take all the decoy/line running out for fear of an attacking player running into a defending player, there'll be no more decoy/hole runners, then we'll have extremely predictable backline plays.

I mean, am I wrong here?

 

[Parra]

I agree with this.

In this specific situation, Ma'u is still a potential recipient of the ball, not just a decoy runner, so he's running his line perfectly and the defence are drawn to him because he's a possible recipient of the pass to go through the hole he's running.

The fact that the ball doesn't go to him, but it goes out the back to Norman, shouldn't really matter (with some exceptions, obviously).

If Ma'u gets the pass, Morgan likely effects the tackle on him and this conversation doesn't even exist.

If we take all the decoy/line running out for fear of an attacking player running into a defending player, there'll be no more decoy/hole runners, then we'll have extremely predictable backline plays.

I mean, am I wrong here?

Anything that is not '5 hit-ups and a kick' is up for scrutiny.

Maybe eradication of passing is the long term strategy of the nrl.

 

[dangerousdave]

Anything that is not '5 hit-ups and a kick' is up for scrutiny.

Maybe eradication of passing is the long term strategy of the nrl.

Maybe... but for the time being, that was a clear no try

 

[Shorty]

I assume any time a decoy runner makes any sort of contact its obstruction, it happens every week there is some suspect call.
Parra is no different from the other teams that have had trys disallowed from this rule.

 

[Bazal]

I assume any time a decoy runner makes any sort of contact its obstruction, it happens every week there is some suspect call.
Parra is no different from the other teams that have had trys disallowed from this rule.

But that's the point. It's a stupid rule that rewards poor defensive reads.

If you're a defender in a try scoring situation all you have to do to ease the pressure on your side is come up on a decoy runner, stand in his way and let him run into you and they'll give you a penalty.

 

[Shorty]

But that's the point. It's a stupid rule that rewards poor defensive reads.

If you're a defender in a try scoring situation all you have to do to ease the pressure on your side is come up on a decoy runner, stand in his way and let him run into you and they'll give you a penalty.

But it isn't, sometimes a player hasn't been sucked in and just gets hit.
That's the point of making it black and white, its just easier to rule that way.

 

[Danish]

But it isn't, sometimes a player hasn't been sucked in and just gets hit.
That's the point of making it black and white, its just easier to rule that way.

Fittler made an excellent point during the first NO TRY call in the Broncos vs Souths game.

It was pulled up for obstruction and all the commentary chuckleheads were crying bloody murder with their usual "he can't disappear" and "the defender wouldn't have got there anyway". Fittler then chimed in and said that in the vast majority of these block plays, the decoy runner is in front of the passer before the ball is even thrown, making him just an offside player. He suggested if they want to run as a decoy they should at a minimum be in a position to receive the pass.

I prefer a black and white interpretation on obstruction to make it consistent. If also like to see it changed to a pure refs call situation, like pass interference in the NFL. The pocket ref is by far the best positioned to call these live, and 95% of the time the video ref simply goes with whatever the on field call was to begin with because the angles make it so hard to judge.