The Official Excuses

[Napper]

I don't see what's so hard about it

You run behind a player, its obstructon, penalise it every time and its solved

Keep an eye on the amount of times it happens when not resulting in a try(it just happens though. Players dont do it puposely it's just a stuff up like throwing a forward, they know its not right but it happens) Its a joke. Dce done it a few times last year too.

Anyone who has ever played footy knows you cant run behind a player who engages defence. It goes hand in hand with double movements and being behind a kicker. It's something kids playing U6s know. I'm bewildered as to why nrl referees cant work it out.

 

[Napper]

I don't see what's so hard about it

You run behind a player, its obstructon, penalise it every time and its solved

Keep an eye on the amount of times it happens when not resulting in a try(it just happens though. Players dont do it puposely it's just a stuff up like throwing a forward, they know its not right but it happens) Its a joke. Dce done it a few times last year too.

Anyone who has ever played footy knows you cant run behind a player who engages defence. It goes hand in hand with double movements and being behind a kicker. It's something kids playing U6s know. I'm bewildered as to why nrl referees cant work it out.

 

[MadMarcus]

The refs have stuffed up the obstruction calls for 3 years now. What Bill has said in that video is spot on. As a RL follower for many decades it is usually obvious when it should be penalised.

The main question refs have always had to ask is did the attacking team gain an advantage through the defensive line being impeded. The other aspect is whether a decoy runner clearly interferes with a defender being able to make a tackle. The grey area and why the ref has discretion is the 'depth on a pass' and as many teams play it close to the line it will probably always be a hard call.

I'm not a fan of Bill's check boxes as that is the reason why the video ref has made so many mistakes. If it looks right then it usually is.

Spot on. You have my vote to replace Billy as ref's boss MB.

 

[MadMarcus]

The refs have stuffed up the obstruction calls for 3 years now. What Bill has said in that video is spot on. As a RL follower for many decades it is usually obvious when it should be penalised.

The main question refs have always had to ask is did the attacking team gain an advantage through the defensive line being impeded. The other aspect is whether a decoy runner clearly interferes with a defender being able to make a tackle. The grey area and why the ref has discretion is the 'depth on a pass' and as many teams play it close to the line it will probably always be a hard call.

I'm not a fan of Bill's check boxes as that is the reason why the video ref has made so many mistakes. If it looks right then it usually is.

Spot on. You have my vote to replace Billy as ref's boss MB.

 

[ManlyBacker]

I don't see what's so hard about it

You run behind a player, its obstructon, penalise it every time and its solved

The depth of a runner or the interference is important. Otherwise a player making a tackle by the play the ball or someone not onside (but not in the play) could get penalised. It would also affect deep backline moves because they may have a player in front somewhere.

 

[ManlyBacker]

I don't see what's so hard about it

You run behind a player, its obstructon, penalise it every time and its solved

The depth of a runner or the interference is important. Otherwise a player making a tackle by the play the ball or someone not onside (but not in the play) could get penalised. It would also affect deep backline moves because they may have a player in front somewhere.

 

[manlyfan76]

Obstruction= if it looks like **** and smells like ****, guess what it's probably ****.

 

[manlyfan76]

Obstruction= if it looks like **** and smells like ****, guess what it's probably ****.

 

[Chip and Chase]

They have now admitted they missed the one by the Broncos on Friday night againts us. No kidding Sherlock !! This straight after a 2 hour masterclass in Obstruction Recognition 101. We've just got to hope something liek this doesn't cost us a final

Referees co-coach Stuart Raper answers your questions from Round 25 of the NRL Telstra Premiership.


Broncos v Manly – was there an obstruction in this game by the Broncos – why did Tony Archer call play-on?

Yes, this was an obstruction and it was missed by the officials. The Broncos player runs behind his own man and then gains an advantage via a pass. We have reminded all officials about their responsibilities in calling these types of obstructions when they see it.

http://www.nrl.com/official-view-round-25/tabid/10874/newsid/69523/default.aspx

 

[The Who]

Again this underlines why the video ref is not working in its current form.
Should Brisbane have scored then it possibly would have been refered and possibly been ruled no try because of obstruction. Had Brisbane scored one tackle later the video ref couldn't take this into consideration.

Yet somehow the video ref was able to tip off the ref that a Manly grubber had not been taken over the dead ball by Brisbane, and the ref changed his ruling to give Brisbane a 20-metre tap. This was the correct ruling, but it is such an ad-hoc system that no-one knows when the video ref is going to pipe up.

 

[Rex]

Questions for Stuart Raper:
1. Why didn't the second referee alert Tony Archer that he'd totally stuffed up in failing to call obstruction? the two linesmen? the video ref?
2. What does the failure of any of the other four referees to alert Archer that he'd missed the obstruction call say about the clarity and confidence the referees have about what constitutes obstruction? Is Harrigan wrong in making claims of clarity by all officials?
3. Referees now habitually make no call on obstruction, and leave it for the video ref to decide. Can you see that a no-call on obstruction is effectively a call of no obstruction? ... especially when it ultimately doesn't get referred to the video ref, like on Friday?
4. Can you acknowledge that the introduction of the extra officials - the second ref and video ref - has caused buck-passing because of the fear of being the one to make the wrong call on a critical play?
5. Given Harrigan made the claims about all referees being clear on obstruction, why did he fob this off onto you?

 

[Brissie Kid]

The week before against Knights in the 2nd half Manly got over the line but the ref called held up which was obvious to everyone. BUT he still called for the video replay. Why? So they could see if there was an obstruction. They found one and penalised Manly.

On Friday night after this obstruction stuff up the break it made ended with the ball kicked into in the ingoal with Manly just grounding it just before Broncos could score. Often the refs call a video replay to check if a drop out is right call or a 20m tap. On Friday night the ref could easily have said to the video ref to "just check it". But he didn't & so Manly didn't get the penalty but the Broncos got the advantage of Manly having to drop out.

Just a joke from start to end with NRL.

 

[southsideeagle]

Obstruction= if it looks like s**t and smells like s**t, guess what it's probably s**t.

I have the philosophy that if it looks like a try it is and if it does not it isnt .. same as above ... why do they need to look so hard to reverse what looks so obvious to 99% of the crowd/auidence

 

[ads]

Archer letting it go just demonstrated that the refs have no confidence in making calls. How can he possibly run through a 7 point check list on the run???

 

[Brissie Kid]

All the Manly players seemed able to do the 7 point check on the run + tackle the Broncos.