You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!
This reply was deleted.
More stuff to read
"I reckon more NRL mutts. The shit that could come out.
I think that could happen but both players ineligible for Round 1."
I think that could happen but both players ineligible for Round 1."
"Right and why would we accept that now? Why go through subpoenaing the NRL to accept what Melbourne originally offered?"
"Cap relief would be an unfair advantage the NRL would be giving Parra over the other 15 clubs. I highly doubt that's something the NRL should or would give"
"Blore wants back to Sydney, why would he head to the Warriors"
Replies
Sorry est but you need to look at the obstruction rule a bit closer as you are wrong on both points.
The reason they surrender after running behind a team mate is so as to not break the below rule (ie. not disadvantage the defensive line). It is why Moeroa was pulled up after running behind Foran last week.
"Running behind your own player:
The ball carrier must not run behind an active block-runner and disadvantage the defensive line."
And the law is also pretty clear on a sweep player receiving the ball before the inside shoulder.
"The indicators for an obstruction include:
4. Attacking players who run a ‘Sweep’^ line must receive the ball beyond the inside shoulder
of the ‘Block’ or ‘Flat’ runner[s]"
I actually think the bunker/refs have been very consistent on it this year.
http://www.nrl.com/laws-of-the-game-obstruction/tabid/10874/newsid/...
I disagree, the rule is as clear as it can be and as long as the bunker is CONSISTENT I think everyone will soon know what they can and can't do. And from what I have seen so far of the bunker they appear to be more consistent than the old system where it was a lottery on interpretation/application of the obstruction rule.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next