Saint Jason Taylor

[DSM5]

I used to hate this prick, but he seems to have nailed Des The Dog coaching a sneaky obstruction play. Outlined in today's SMH. Go Jason. Hope the idiots in the middle can prick this one where it hurts.

 

[Disco]

I got this funny feeling that the Eels can make a game of it tonight.

 

[Dan]

is the article online?

 

[Cameron]

Dave middleton just tweeted that parra have never lost on Friday the 13th. @ $7 or $8.50
It's worth a $10 bet

 

[Dan]

just read it.

have to agree with his assessment. The origin one was an obstruction no matter how you slice it and it was sickening to see it justified by the referee boss

 

[Napper]

just read it.

have to agree with his assessment. The origin one was an obstruction no matter how you slice it and it was sickening to see it justified by the referee boss

Was it online mate?

 

[Utility Player]

The origin one was an obstruction no matter how you slice it and it was sickening to see it justified by the referee boss

Barrett summed it up, NSW have trained to stop that move (Queensland call it Elvis) for years. Hodges running behind Hannant prevented Carney stopping Thurston who the ball should have gone to.

 

[HappilyManly]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/obstruction-bulldogs-are-getting-away-with-murder-20120712-21z06.html

The SOO defenders made the wrong choice.
But the 2 Dogs bracketing the Runner with the ball means that the Defenders have no place to move up.

 

[Brookvale]

Good work JT

 

[Top End Eagle]

Might have to send an email to talking caneberry, see if Hughes agrees with JT.

Bones, you up for that?

 

[Stevo]

Funny to read all the comments at the bottom of that article. Some people have NFI!

 

[Chip and Chase]

Both garden variety obstructions, anyone who thinks otherwise has lost touch with the spirit of the rule.

Decoy runners are a blight on the game, they are there for one reason only and that is to confuse, obstruct and hinder the opposition defence. There should be no benefit of the doubt to the attacking side if there is any hint of a player running behind a teammate. Penalty.

Hodges "try" was a joke, the fact that the top levels of officialdom are trying to justify the decision is even more worrying.

 

[Bradza]

Both garden variety obstructions, anyone who thinks otherwise has lost touch with the spirit of the rule.

Decoy runners are a blight on the game, they are there for one reason only and that is to confuse, obstruct and hinder the opposition defence. There should be no benefit of the doubt to the attacking side if there is any hint of a player running behind a teammate. Penalty.

Hodges "try" was a joke, the fact that the top levels of officialdom are trying to justify the decision is even more worrying.

You've summed that up nicely C&C. It doesn't matter how cleverly they are constructed you shouldn't get any benefit of the doubt for sending decoys through or into the defensive line.

 

[Stevo]

It's not the decoy. The decoy runner is fine as long as he doesn't physically impede anyone. It's the use of the decoy as a shield for a ball runner that is the prob.

[attachment=304]

In this photo the defenders have committed to tackling Pritchard because of where Barba is. If Barba was on the left hand side of Pritchard when he got the ball the defenders would have a fair idea he is going to get the ball. Because he is still on the right they assume he is not because he "can't run the ball behind one of his own players".

There are 2 rules that create confusion in this area. The Shephard and the Obstruction rule. The decoy runner has nothing to do with a shephard apart from being there. The decoy runner has everything to do with an obstruction as it's his actions that are deemed to impede a defender or not.

Same play-2 different infringements.

 

[globaleagle]

thanks for the article Jason.

now to watch the nrl and refs do nothing about it.

 

[mickqld]

thanks for the article Jason.

now to watch the nrl and refs do nothing about it.

Yeah my thoughts also. Great article and spot on JT but the weasels in pink will do nothing about it same as Storms break neck tactics. Canterbury are the NRL darlings at the moment especially that smug **** Greensnot. Saw his smarmy interview last night trying to be Mr Conciliation over $BW what a greasy turd he is. Reminds me of a cross between a criminal lawyer, a used car salesman and Kohder Nasser.

 

[bazeagle]

thanks for the article Jason.

now to watch the nrl and refs do nothing about it.

Yeah my thoughts also. Great article and spot on JT but the weasels in pink will do nothing about it same as Storms break neck tactics. Canterbury are the NRL darlings at the moment especially that smug f**k Greensnot. Saw his smarmy interview last night trying to be Mr Conciliation over $BW what a greasy turd he is. Reminds me of a cross between a criminal lawyer, a used car salesman and Kohder Nasser.

Classic. That tool hosting that show called Greenburg "impressive". Struggling to see that.

 

[Chip and Chase]

There are 2 rules that create confusion in this area. The Shephard and the Obstruction rule. .........Same play-2 different infringements.

I'm pretty sure it's just one rule, and it's called obstruction. There is no such thing as a "shepherd" rule.

 

[Stevo]

And that's the confusion. In the rule book they're both called Obstruction but really only 1 is an obstruction caused by the decoy runner. The other is your classic shephard - which is also called obstruction. Go figure?

 

[Phantar]

thanks for the article Jason.

now to watch the nrl and refs do nothing about it.

Yeah my thoughts also. Great article and spot on JT but the weasels in pink will do nothing about it same as Storms break neck tactics. Canterbury are the NRL darlings at the moment especially that smug f**k Greensnot. Saw his smarmy interview last night trying to be Mr Conciliation over $BW what a greasy turd he is. Reminds me of a cross between a criminal lawyer, a used car salesman and Kohder Nasser.

Classic. That tool hosting that show called Greenburg "impressive". Struggling to see that.

Andrew Moore makes Paul Vautin look like George Clooney. Has there ever been an uglier presenter?

Toddberg was wise enough to say that all was forgiven between the Dishlickers and Dollar Bill. As he should, because he might be called a hypocrite after his efforts in luring Hasler away.

Loved the Robbie O'Davis/Mark Carroll piece. NOT. Of course Moore and his clueless sidekicks weren't game to ask Robbie about his pillpopping.

Back to Greenberg. Seems some history is being rewritten by Josh Massoud in today's Bellylaugh. Apparently the Dishlickers only started thinking of Hasler as a prospective coach last August! I'm reminded of the C-B supporter with the beautiful girlfriend. His name - Azif!