NRL NRL 2020 Season - Round 18

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

moto748

Club Legend
Apr 19, 2010
2,881
479
Wigan
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Wigan Warriors
You'd have to have a heart of stone not to be cheering the Titans on! They have some talent, and are added considerable prime beef next season. Roosters are indeed a joy to watch. Keary's first try was a beauty.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

AmericanAFL

Club Legend
Oct 8, 2018
2,051
1,953
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Philadelphia Eagles
You'd have to have a heart of stone not to be cheering the Titans on! They have some talent, and are added considerable prime beef next season. Roosters are indeed a joy to watch. Keary's first try was a beauty.
Most importantly they’ve made me $$$$

Kudos Titans on a season to build on 💪🏼💪🏼
 

PhatBoy

Brownlow Medallist
May 5, 2016
25,335
26,540
AFL Club
Geelong
It’s still an overreaction in my view. A penalty sure but 10 minutes? It didn’t cost the game at least but it wrecked the game.

Mate you can't do it. It isn't hard to NOT call the referee the most explicit term in the English language. Especially for an offender who pretty much refuses point blank to learn his lesson no matter how many times he gets himself in trouble.

I love the Cowboys and as a Queensland origin fan I actually try to like McGuire but the bloke is cut from the same intellectual cloth as the likes of Kenny-Dowall, Asofa-Solomona, and Joey Leilua - ie. the not very smart cloth.
 

moto748

Club Legend
Apr 19, 2010
2,881
479
Wigan
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Wigan Warriors
I wasn't aware of exactly what he said, but swearing at a ref should be an automatic yellow; I don't see any controversy in that.

Going back to the Roosters, although the result was never in doubt, I thought they got some pretty favourable calls from the officials. The try that went up as 'no-try', I really don't think there was enough there to overturn. And that was not the only favourable call, as I recall.
 

PhatBoy

Brownlow Medallist
May 5, 2016
25,335
26,540
AFL Club
Geelong
I wasn't aware of exactly what he said, but swearing at a ref should be an automatic yellow; I don't see any controversy in that.

Going back to the Roosters, although the result was never in doubt, I thought they got some pretty favourable calls from the officials. The try that went up as 'no-try', I really don't think there was enough there to overturn. And that was not the only favourable call, as I recall.
You mean the first one? I dont know what was even being looked at, to be honest. A knock on? He had control all the way. The penalty count was 6-5 Roosters in a game where they had a tonne of possession, and Newcastle won the set restarts 5-4. If there was any intent to favour the Roosters, it wasn't manifested in the general policing of the match.

We had a try disallowed because Nat Butcher doesn't have the power of teleportation and it was backed in blunt detail by Graham Annesley. As a rugby league tragic, those calls are a slap in the face, regardless of what team they go for or against. A player cannot be expected to get tackled, then sprint back 10 metres after he's played the ball just because there's a chance defenders can run into him. All he can do is play the ball and stand still, which Butcher did.

Paul Gallen has a huge amount to answer for - he was the first player I'd ever seen who tried deliberately to run into non-ball handling opponents to get a penalty. Obstruction penalties had always been in existence, but previously, defenders would TRY and tackle, or get to, the guy with the ball. If a decoy runner or someone obstructed the defence, it was never because a defender had TRIED to get obstructed. Then Gal started deliberately running into decoy runners or players in offside positions, and dropping like he'd been shot. Referees fell for it and it's been a farcical part of the game ever since.
 

LukeParkerno1

Post-Human
Sep 23, 2005
125,841
49,730
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Sydney Swans
Can’t agree with the Butcher one, that’s been an obstruction all year. It’s the old fashioned non deliberate shepherd basically. What could Butcher have done? Get out of the area or go backwards there were options. You allow that as a try you open up a can of worms heading into finals and don’t tell me coaches wouldn’t exploit it.
 

PhatBoy

Brownlow Medallist
May 5, 2016
25,335
26,540
AFL Club
Geelong
Can’t agree with the Butcher one, that’s been an obstruction all year. It’s the old fashioned non deliberate shepherd basically. What could Butcher have done? Get out of the area or go backwards there were options. You allow that as a try you open up a can of worms heading into finals and don’t tell me coaches wouldn’t exploit it.

Lol. No it's not mate. It's an obstruction MAYBE if he was a decoy runner. He's not. He played the ball. As Annesley pointed out, you cannot expect a player who has put himself in a legal position, to be forced to run backwards after playing the ball. There is no part of the game in which that is an illegal play.

You don't open a can of worms allowing that, because it has been exploited by coaches for 112 years. It's a basic middle-third option when you're attacking the tryline - dummy half engages 2 defenders and turns the ball back inside to go to the other side of the ruck. If you're not getting taught that, your coach isn't doing a good job.

More to the point, no-one was impeded. Tex Hoy runs straight past Butcher, gets a full shot on Lindsay Collins, and attempts a tackle that a pre-schooler would have executed with more conviction.

And for what it's worth, it HAS been allowed. the Referee's boss said publicly in a step-by-step walk through of the play, that it is a perfectly legal piece of football and the call to disallow it was wrong.
 

LukeParkerno1

Post-Human
Sep 23, 2005
125,841
49,730
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Sydney Swans
Lol. No it's not mate. It's an obstruction MAYBE if he was a decoy runner. He's not. He played the ball. As Annesley pointed out, you cannot expect a player who has put himself in a legal position, to be forced to run backwards after playing the ball. There is no part of the game in which that is an illegal play.

You don't open a can of worms allowing that, because it has been exploited by coaches for 112 years. It's a basic middle-third option when you're attacking the tryline - dummy half engages 2 defenders and turns the ball back inside to go to the other side of the ruck. If you're not getting taught that, your coach isn't doing a good job.

More to the point, no-one was impeded. Tex Hoy runs straight past Butcher, gets a full shot on Lindsay Collins, and attempts a tackle that a pre-schooler would have executed with more conviction.
You cannot obstruct a defender. This rubbish has been creeping into games and it's like players don't get it, defenders shouldn't have to deal with decoys and what not- it is legalised so called cheating. You play the ball, get out of the way or run through the line, take your pick. Don't obstruct the players and don't stand there looking like you don't mean to take an advantage. It would just become a deliberate tactic. I'm glad it happened in a match that had little consequence. It is actually more annoying that teams think they can get away with it especially as they don't need to do it.
 

PhatBoy

Brownlow Medallist
May 5, 2016
25,335
26,540
AFL Club
Geelong
You cannot obstruct a defender. This rubbish has been creeping into games and it's like players don't get it, defenders shouldn't have to deal with decoys and what not- it is legalised so called cheating. You play the ball, get out of the way or run through the line, take your pick. Don't obstruct the players and don't stand there looking like you don't mean to take an advantage. It would just become a deliberate tactic. I'm glad it happened in a match that had little consequence. It is actually more annoying that teams think they can get away with it especially as they don't need to do it.
mate they can get away with it because it is perfectly legal. Nowhere in the rules does it say you can't switch your point of attack from one side of the ruck to the other simply because a previously tackled player is still there.

No you can't obstruct a defender. You are also unable to magically disappear. So what is required of you, is to take measures to not move in front of a defender or alter your position to impede him, or deliberately engage him. As such, just like the referees boss, who stood in 244 first grade games, explained in great depth yesterday, Butcher did exactly the right thing by not moving at all, from his legal position, and as such should never have been penalised.

Mate you're not arguing a point of view here, and you're not arguing with another forum user. You're arguing with the guy who oversees the correct implementation of the rules, has adjudicated those rules at the highest level, and has explained those rules. It's not an obsctruction. If he moved sideways at all, it may have been. He didn't.

You can't play the ball and run through the line because that then DOES put you in an illegal position. You're furthering your offside position and if, in trying to run through the line, someone DOES get obstructed, then he will automatically be penalised. He can run backwards, but he's not going to. If he's expected to run backwards just because he's played the ball within 10 metres of the try line, then suddenly the onus is going to be on every person playing the ball inside the 10m zone, to run backwards. The game becomes a farce.

Lastly, as I pointed out, no one WAS obstructed. To his credit Tex Hoy ran straight past Butcher, wasn't impeded, and wasn't denied any chance to make the tackle. He just did a terrible job of attempting it.
 

Remove this Banner Ad