We can all agree that refereeing is not an easy job. Refs have to make split second calls, most are correct but there will always be incorrect calls. I can live with that. My biggest bugbear is stripping of balls and the obstruction call.
Firstly the stripping rule is a lottery. Many look like lost balls but refs still call strip, I think more responsibility needs to be on ball carrier and unless obvious strip it is called dropped ball.
Lastly the obstruction call. We continue to see inconsistency or stupidity in applying this rule. To me there actually needs to be an OBSTRUCTION, meaning a defender is prevented from getting to ball carrier, before called. But the bunker is trying to make it black and white, the ball carrier runs behind his own player and boom, obstruction. We have suffered twice from the bunker, this week and last week, where the experts, Sterlo and Gould, have stated there was NO obstruction and I agree. There was an even more ridiculous call in another game where ball was passed along line about 5 metres from the defensive line and ball carrier run behind own player. The defensive line was static, no player moving out or contacted by block runner, but obstruction called when team scored.
Now if I can see there was no obstruction why can't the bunker? This is a blight on the game spoiling good fair trys from being scored. Greenberg, FIX THIS PRONTO as it is spoiling the game.
Replies
I agree.
Listening to the bunker describe a decoy runner running an inside shoulder of the defender or an outside shoulder is misleading. The decoys job is to run between 2 defenders and try and get them to follow him while leaving the ball runners with less defenders to beat. This was done perfectly when Norman got around his defender to pass to Foz who scores or doesnt in the eyes of the bunker.
The issue for me is this, when you run between two defenders you are on the inside of one and the outside of the other. So depending on the interpretation by the ref you might get the all clear or be penalised.
Did Manu make contact with a defender? Yes. Did he obstruct a defender from tackling Norman? No.
This needs to be fixed as decoy runners are becoming a lottery and I dont want to watch a game where pure luck dictates the outcome. I want skill and technique to bring a result.
look agree stripping is a joke hoppa punches the ball out on the line, is that a great image for our game,i think most of the cowboys ganging tackling against the eels saturday night was to help the ball out,most where helped out stripping no doubt.
OBSTRUCTION, rule are used some times and noyt other times yes it a joke.. refs are useless and the bunker over the top.. its getting worse by the day. foren try should have been a try,yesterday it was ok .
The inherent problem with relying on an obstruction criteria is that it is subjective & dependent on a refs on field perspective. IMO there would still be instances of 50/50 calls that would still result in fans & commentators bitching about whether a defender was impeded & a try should have or shouldn't have been awarded.
The benefit of having a so called "black or white" situation is that coaches & players know the rule & can be coached accordingly.
Exactly. Obstruction, shepherd's etc should ALL hinge on 2 things.....(a) did the runner/attacking team run behind their own player and/or have a decoy make significant contact with the oppositions line AND (b) was the defensive line/single player impeded in making a tackle by the act described in part (a).
It MUST be both things with the key word being impeded. If no one is actually impede it is not and cannot be a shepherd or obstruction. The whole inside/outside should, who initiated contact thing is absolute bollocks!
Nice rants brissyeel. Good stuff, well said.