Stripping and Obstruction Rules

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.

You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!

Join 1Eyed Eel

Votes: 0
Email me when people reply –

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 .

  • As soon as 3 defenders in tackle you know one will attack ball. Simple to read even for a ref.
  • 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!

  • This reply was deleted.
    • Nice rants brissyeel. Good stuff, well said.

  • They can't get rid of the stripping rule, it is extremely flawed but the alternative would be worse. The stripping rule was introduced for a reason, Alan Langer would come in and rip the ball out of players hands while they were being held by 2 or 3 defenders, could you just imagine how rampant that would be in today's game, the Melbourne Storm would love it. It would be impossible for players to hold the ball while 2 or 3 defenders were pulling their arms apart for someone else to strip it. 

This reply was deleted.

More stuff to read

Poupou Escobar replied to Hell On Eels's discussion Cooper Cronk: On the Parramatta Eels, Pezet, Lomax and Recruitment
"I'm sure Pezet will be getting more at Brisbane than at Parra, and I agree we're paying him good money. My guess is about $600k"
14 minutes ago
KingGutho replied to Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐's discussion Matterson’s back @ training today. What now.
"Matterson defence is pretty good, if he has a decent off season he could get that bench spot, can play anywhere in the forward pack, so could be handy "
40 minutes ago
Aracom replied to Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐's discussion Matterson’s back @ training today. What now.
"Id pay him to take off the jersey tbh"
4 hours ago
Wizardssleeves official receipts replied to Hell On Eels's discussion Cooper Cronk: On the Parramatta Eels, Pezet, Lomax and Recruitment
"Point is , he'll hardly be getting Moses money just cause he gets to kick.  . We aren't shy to throw a decent paycheque out there and we certainly have some.  If we offered that clown that kinda coin , I'm sure we wouldn't have been offering Peasant…"
8 hours ago
More…