Obstruction Rule Amended

[Kiwi Eagle]

I'm prepared to give it a go

I was happy enough with the consistently of what was happening with it the 1st 4 weeks, but if they want to try another solution it is worth exploring

The part that may actually make this work, is that they are putting ex players up with the video refs these days, and they will have a fairly good idea if a player has been impeded or has simply made a bad call

 

[Stevo]

Yeah. that was a good idea. People had been saying this for years though. Hollywood just never listened. To anyone!

 

[Kiwi Eagle]

I think Anderson is miles ahead of Harrigan already

It is just a simple thing, but the try/no try signal when they send it upstairs and the removal of BOTD has made it so much better

 

[Rex]

I'll happily wear the loss of the Anasta try and similar to clear up the obstruction rule. Attackers need clarity on what will happen if they come into contact with defenders. It was simply an offensive error to allow the collision with Anasta.

Decoys have the option of running through the line (without obstruction) or stopping before the line (without obstruction).

If they can't do either, if there's apparent obstruction, then I've no problem with referees calling obstruction - with no BOD on this decision to the attacking team.

The media's job is to create controversy. Bear this in mind when listening to hyped-up commentators.

 

[Rodo]

I think Anderson is miles ahead of Harrigan already

It is just a simple thing, but the try/no try signal when they send it upstairs and the removal of BOTD has made it so much better

Agreed mate. I think Anderson has been doing some great things so far in his short time as referees boss.

Having past players as refs is a great step in improving things.

I read an interesting article yesterday where they will be looking at the NHL video review system where they have a central location at somewhere like NHL HQ where they have one set of video refs who adjudicate all games. I thought this was ridiculous at first but then realised that it can only be a good thing as it would give consistency in decisions which is often lacking from one NRL game to the next.

 

[Matabele]

Anderson doesn't have Harrigan's hubris and megalomania.

 

[silvertail]

Just get rid of decoy plays altogether by penalising the attacking team as soon as the decoy runner runs past the advantage line (ie ends up anywhere in front of the ball player) and get back to skilful halves play a la Cliffy Lyons.

Make it a black and white rule.

 

[Chip and Chase]

Here's an article by Matty Johns on the subject.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/league/nrl-premiership/nrl-referees-boss-daniel-anderson-needed-to-hold-his-nerve-over-obstruction-rule-writes-matty-johns/story-fn2mcuj6-1226612966431

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

I've heard a few people voice that opinion and I can see some merit to it. One part of a decoy runner/option runner is that it puts the defence in two minds, but the other part is that - if the first runner does go through without the ball - there is an obvious risk of the defence being impeded.

I confess to having some fears about giving the video refs discretion again. It will inevitably lead to an increase in claims of inconsistency. Won't it? And inconsistency in officiating is probably the biggest bugbear of all for coaches, players - and especially fans.

 

[Ralphie]

Yep, the timing is great, we'll give discretion to the video refs and the first game under that discretion will be between Canterbury and Manly with Luke Patten in the video ref's box.

Absolutely no risk of controversy in that is there.