The decoy play is dead

[Engine]

The decoy play is dead in rugby league.

Evidence 1 : Round 1 (Broncos vCowboys) Luke O'Donnell was given a no-try ruling late in the first half off an excellent backline move. It was a no-try because a cowboy player was meant to have taken out a bronco player in defence (I think it was Karmichael Hunt).
First of all, Hunt was nowhere NEAR Luke O'Donnell at the time. Second, the cowboy attacker actually stopped, while K-Hunt ran into him and fell down like a shot duck. Most disgraceful decision I've seen in 2009.
I was in a pub basically full of bronco supporters. To a man, bronco supporters either had a sheepish look or said the broncs were very lucky. Not one of them said it was a fair decision.

Evidence 2 : Round 8 (Cronulla v Easts) Jordan Tansey was given a no-try ruling because of Craig Fitzgibbon impeding the defender.
Disgraceful decision. Fitzgibbon even stopped his run. The defender made a bad choice to commit to tackling Fitzgibbon.

In the spirit of the game, both Luke O'Donnell and Jordan Tansey should have been awarded tries.
I can understand a try not being awarded if the attacking decoy ran into a defender or grabbed a defender. Fitzgibbon stopped his run and did not grab the Cronulla defender.
The purpose of a decoy runner is to force the defence to make a bad decision and tackle the decoy runner. That Cronulla defender had a fair choice on who to tackle, just made the wrong one.

 

[JasonE]

Blake Greeen made a poor read in defence therefore Tansey's try should have been allowed, it's pretty sad when the video refs don't know the rules.

 

[Ghoulies]

lol, the LOD no try was an easy one. Matt Scott took out a defender in the Broncos' line before Thurston even passed the ball. The defender that was taken out may not have been near LOD, but they were near Thurston, meaning that the rest of the defensive line had to adjust to the gap made by the block runner.

edit: I also completely disagree with the theme of your post too. The decoy play is still extremely effective, perhaps too effective. Just watch how the Broncos score most of their points; I bet over half of our tries come from some variation of that 2nd man decoy play. It's the same with other sides too.

 

[northwest9]

tanseys should have been a try, poor defensive read, not obstuction.

 

[Dogs Of War]

Evidence 2 : Round 8 (Cronulla v Easts) Jordan Tansey was given a no-try ruling because of Craig Fitzgibbon impeding the defender.
Disgraceful decision. Fitzgibbon even stopped his run. The defender made a bad choice to commit to tackling Fitzgibbon.

Problem here is, that he touched the guy, now the guy did make a poor read, but if you open it up to did he make a poor read, you create a grey area which thens leaves it up to the refs to make the decision on whether they are impeded or not, and refs aren't good at being consistent that way. So better left how it is currently, it's quite clear cut, touch the defender as a decoy and you are in the wrong. All Fitz had to do was step to the side as well as slow down (which he did), and it would have taken that out of the equation.

Many sides are able to do it effectively all season (run decoys), so it isn't dead, just needs to be done without touching a defender.

 

[typicalfan]

Running a proper decoy is not dead and is a great weapon in the game.

 

[Scorpio30]

Running a proper decoy is not dead and is a great weapon in the game.

Is that Todd Byrne putting Jarrod Hayne in a sleeper hold?

 

[typicalfan]

yeah i guess it is

 

[no name]

Problem here is, that he touched the guy, now the guy did make a poor read, but if you open it up to did he make a poor read, you create a grey area which thens leaves it up to the refs to make the decision on whether they are impeded or not, and refs aren't good at being consistent that way. So better left how it is currently, it's quite clear cut, touch the defender as a decoy and you are in the wrong. All Fitz had to do was step to the side as well as slow down (which he did), and it would have taken that out of the equation.

Many sides are able to do it effectively all season (run decoys), so it isn't dead, just needs to be done without touching a defender.

Fitzgibbon didn't touch the Sharks player (Green I think), the Sharks player touched him.
If Green went out to Tansey Fitzgibbon woulda run through untouched (with or without the ball)

 

[Dogs Of War]

Fitzgibbon didn't touch the Sharks player (Green I think), the Sharks player touched him.
If Green went out to Tansey Fitzgibbon woulda run through untouched (with or without the ball)

No Fitz was running forwards, Green actually stood his ground (and committed to tackling Fitzgibbon), have a another look at the replay, and you can see Green cement his feet into the ground well before Fitz runs into him.

 

[no name]

No Fitz was running forwards, Green actually stood his ground (and committed to tackling Fitzgibbon), have a another look at the replay, and you can see Green cement his feet into the ground well before Fitz runs into him.

Exactly.
Should have been a try.
Even though he 'cements' his feet, he is the one who instigates contact with Fitzgibbon by leaning back towards him.

 

[Dogs Of War]

Exactly.
Should have been a try.
Even though he 'cements' his feet, he is the one who instigates contact with Fitzgibbon by leaning back towards him.

Did you read the rest of my post? The ref's have made it black and white, and thus as the player didn't move into Fitz, then Fitz needed to make sure he avoided the player. It doesn't matter what you believe is more logical as far as the game goes, it's about making the interpretations of the decisions much easier, which a decision like this shows. As soon as Fitz touched the player, it was interference, and was penalised accordingly.

 

[nqcowboy87]

warren ryan thought the pansey call was an obstruction

 

[no name]

Did you read the rest of my post? The ref's have made it black and white, and thus as the player didn't move into Fitz, then Fitz needed to make sure he avoided the player. It doesn't matter what you believe is more logical as far as the game goes, it's about making the interpretations of the decisions much easier, which a decision like this shows. As soon as Fitz touched the player, it was interference, and was penalised accordingly.

Did you read the rest of mine?
Green initiates contact, if he doesn't lean in to Fitzgibbon, contact is avoided
It doesn't sound like you will agree so I think we'll have to agree to disagree

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

It's only dead for the Roosters. We're the only team not allowed to use the decoy play and get ripped off 9/10 times it goes to the video ref.

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

Bulldogs try allowed, Roosters try denied.

Only Easts aren't allowed to have decoy plays.

Still, getting hammered by the refs each week was worth it to booth Finch out.

 

[Timmah]

What 'Dogs try involving obstruction was allowed? :?

 

[simmo1]

What 'Dogs try involving obstruction was allowed? :?

The first one was very similar to one the Roosters had disallowed last night. IMO, both should have been awarded, but there is absolutely no consistency to the rulings these days.

As Phil Gould said this morning, they're trying to write black and white rules to something which is nearly entirely subjective, and its resulting in inconsistent rulings. Employ refs with a brain, and we don't have this problem.

 

[squiddy]

Only Easts aren't allowed to have decoy plays.

quote]

Mate I agree the Fitzgibbon incident from last night should have been awarded but in my opinion so should the sharks try near the end , he still broke four attempted tacklers to score.

Matty Bowen got ripped off a fair try last week and Covell got ripped off of a fair try against the raiders in Adelaide a few weeks back too .

The obstuction/ decoy rule is a total farce

 

[Game_Breaker]

Bulldogs try allowed, Roosters try denied.

Only Easts aren't allowed to have decoy plays.

Still, getting hammered by the refs each week was worth it to booth Finch out.

boo freakin hoo

The bulldogs also had a try disallowed from a pathetic video ref decision. The Tigers got rewarded for a bad read in defence