BS obstruction and forward pass

[Clay]

So DCE should have remained stationary to avoid the opposition player rather than allowing the defensive line to slide in the direction of the ball movement?
I agree that it was a fair try (under the current rules) but I don't agree with the way these rules currently work (or don't work).

No,
If DCE stands still then the runner runs directly smack bang into DCE which would be an obstruction.
Because DCE pivots and initiates contact with his inside shoulder, technically to the rules it is not an obstruction.

 

[maxta]

No,
If DCE stands still then the runner runs directly smack bang into DCE which would be an obstruction.
Because DCE pivots and initiates contact with his inside shoulder, technically to the rules it is not an obstruction.

On that point Clay...Initial contact is 50/50 - as the runner was involved in the contact as he didn't run the inside lane, always lined up to brush the defender...fact is, he stops in the line which is the definate indisputable obstruction rule.

 

[desreturnoftheking]

That pass was 100% forward.. typical bs from a bs comp run by fools full of bs

 

[desreturnoftheking]

No,
If DCE stands still then the runner runs directly smack bang into DCE which would be an obstruction.
Because DCE pivots and initiates contact with his inside shoulder, technically to the rules it is not an obstruction.

that's what I think but the forward pass at the end is just that

 

[TokyoEagle]

Have to say that I agree with Jerry and Clay on this one. Not enough on the obstruction and felt that DCE was playing for the call and could have slid if he needed to. The forward pass is a little different though, whoever made the call on Tom's forward pass in the first half needs to make a similar call in the second. #refsloveacomeback

p.s. Gus Gould and his mouth are a liability. Even when he is wrong he tries to cling to anything to justify his obviously incorrect observation.

 

[maxta]

Have to say that I agree with Jerry and Clay on this one. Not enough on the obstruction and felt that DCE was playing for the call and could have slid if he needed to. The forward pass is a little different though, whoever made the call on Tom's forward pass in the first half needs to make a similar call in the second. #refsloveacomeback

p.s. Gus Gould and his mouth are a liability. Even when he is wrong he tries to cling to anything to justify his obviously incorrect observation.

Gould probably has a point with DCE initiating contact, though if it was Cleary he would have called out the runner for still making contact....these calls can go either way.....the fact the player pulls up at the line is a non negotiable penalty and the part he failed to mention after justifying the first part.
The forward pass was blatant.
Fact is - a try that should not have been awarded for any of these 3 reasons.

 

[COMMANDER]

Cherry should have been trying to make a tackle instead of playing for a penalty.

 

[fLIP]

I think the worst thing you can do is play for a penalty (even if you are 100% deserving of one) and leave the decision in the hands of a the referees or the bunker.

The officiating on these obstruction calls is the entire reason players dive after contact. They know the game, they know when there is an obstruction and violation of rules but they feel they need to overplay the scenario to highlight the blatantly obvious infractions to blatantly inept officials.

 

[HoldenV8]

As much as anything though, we should never have put ourselves in a position where that last try was the match winner. We should have put them away early in the second half after having a 20-6 half time lead, but unfortunately we bumbled and stumbled our way through the second half and let the Tigpies get back into the game.

 

[Merdy33]

Ever heard of 2013? Didn't make a difference.

Yeah, you're right. But it was all a little bit subtle there. A forward pass not ruled on, and a couple of other things.

But I'm talking something more obvious. A real howler. Maybe like Aku's dropped ball try against the knights (noting that one was in our favour). The match winning try with 30 seconds to go. Against the storm.

 

[Jerry1]

Cherry should have been trying to make a tackle instead of playing for a penalty.[/QUOTEE
Exactly......

 

[NLSeaEagle]

I wish this thread would go away!!
I'm trying to get over the trauma of Sunday and this thread keeps popping up at the top!

 

[Killer03]

Like a lot of things in the NRL I have no issue with the call going against DCE.....it's the inconsistency. Next week the same thing will happen and a different decision. To me DCE definitely played for it (which is fine) and had time to readjust.....but this call will be reversed next week.

 

[midsteyne]

It happened right in front of me and I could literally see the gap created by the obstruction as the outside backs struggled to cope when they realised DCE could not defend. I wasn't even worried when they put the ball down - I thought there was no way in the world it would be awarded.

But that's par for the course unfortunately in the NRL in 2017... I should have known better and we should have been better.

FAKE BUNKERING

 

[NLSeaEagle]

Like a lot of things in the NRL I have no issue with the call going against DCE.....it's the inconsistency. Next week the same thing will happen and a different decision. To me DCE definitely played for it (which is fine) and had time to readjust.....but this call will be reversed next week.

Your'e so right about the inconsistency...................I have heard so many times the Bunker make the distinction between the lead runner going through the line and staying in the line.
If the lead runner stays in the defensive line it has always been called obstruction.

Regardless if DCE initiated contact intentionally, the Tigers player did not go thru the line as he should have but stayed in the defensive line
It was clearly obstruction per the way the rule has been applied this year.

I think if this happened in the first 15 minutes that try gets chalked off!

But last minute of the game....... underdog team, home crowd, those pr***s from Manly are the opposition..............f*** the rules!!

 

[Chip and Chase]

DCE committed to the decoy that was his decision, and as it turned out a bad one. Once he committed Walker did the same and started to come in - then boom overlap. I still maintain that I have seen similar ruled as obstruction though, so it's a lottery.

 

[Ron E. Gibbs]

The thing that most pissed me off about the obstruction call was that it took attention away from the obviously forward final pass.

 

[NLSeaEagle]

The thing that most pissed me off about the obstruction call was that it took attention away from the obviously forward final pass.

Yeah but the Bunker cant rule on a forward pass.....................so once the refs let it go, that was done and dusted.

It annoys me immensely the ref's interpretation of "forward passes".
Any mug can see that was more forward than the one TT threw earlier in the game!

I'm still pissed about the one SBW got away with it that led to a try on the 6th Oct 2013!!