Harrigan backs Hodges try decision
Related coverage
Referees chief Bill Harrigan has backed the decision of video referee Steve Clark to award a try to Queensland centre Justin Hodges in Wednesday’s State of Origin decider in Brisbane.
NSW were left fuming after the 37th-minute effort was allowed, claiming Beau Scott and Robbie Farah were obstructed by Ben Hannant, and Hodges ran behind his Brisbane teammate to score.
Gallen hopeful Stuart will stay with NSW
Blues great Brad Fittler and Queensland legend Wally Lewis both slammed the decision during commentary on the 21-20 win for the Maroons at Suncorp Stadium.
The official wording of the NRL’s obstruction rule says: “The runner cannot run behind his own team and gain an advantage.”
However, Harrigan said that last year a change was made to the interpretation of the rule and that Clark made the correct call.
“The change was that: If in the opinion of the referee or video referee the play had no effect on the scoring of a try then a try will be awarded,” Harrigan told the NRL website.
“The reason for this change was that the obstruction rule had become so technical that tries were being disallowed when they shouldn’t have been.
“There remain a number of indicators that referees should look for in determining if an obstruction has taken place but the over-riding one they must consider is whether a player actually had an effect on the try being scored.
“In this case both video referees believed that Scott wasn’t impeded by Ben Hannant’s decoy run and that Farah had minimal contact which did not alter the outcome.
“Both video referees formed the view therefore that the player did not have an effect on the scoring of the try. Having reviewed the footage we support that position.”
It was the second contentious decision to go against NSW in the series, with Greg Inglis awarded a try in game one after appearing to knock on.
Harrigan said that try was awarded because Farah played at the ball with his foot and the deflection off Inglis was a legitimate rebound.
© AAP 2013
Passionate about your league? Then sign up to The Roar's brand new daily league email, delivering Roaring articles directly to you day-in, day-out. You'll love it!
Click here to join now!
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
- Explore:
- maroons, NRL, NSW Blues, Rugby League, State Of Origin
July 6th 2012 @ 7:43am
Mals said | July 6th 2012 @ 7:43am | Report comment
If he had his time again, instead of throwing his hands in the air Farah would ensure he collided with Hannant.
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
July 6th 2012 @ 10:01am
Meesta Cool said | July 6th 2012 @ 10:01am | Report comment
Wow Mals, I thought that I was the only person on The Roar with that opinion.. I was disappointed at Farah’s commitment, taking the easy way out and putting pressure on the ref to make life easier!. — Suppose that is easy to say sat in an armchair with a couple empty bottles in fronr of me… What a great game though… it had everything.
July 6th 2012 @ 10:21am
turbodewd said | July 6th 2012 @ 10:21am | Report comment
Mals,
you are dead right. Farah stopped playing football and tried to obtain a penalty before any possible whistle – bad move! Farah needed to ACTIVELY try to tackle Hodges and if Hannant did indeed obstruct it would have been obvious. Instead Farah and number 11 watched Hodges score. Virtually escorted him!
July 6th 2012 @ 7:58am
waterboy said | July 6th 2012 @ 7:58am | Report comment
This is the problem with not having someone involved in making the decisions having played the game at least at first grade standard.
Anyone who has played the game knows you dont have to be contacted by a dummy runner to be interfered with on a defensive play.
DIDN’T GAIN AN ADVANTAGE?????
Harrigan and his cronies are living in cloud cuckoo land
July 6th 2012 @ 9:17am
mushi said | July 6th 2012 @ 9:17am | Report comment
So you played first grade? Which club?
July 6th 2012 @ 9:37am
Ken said | July 6th 2012 @ 9:37am | Report comment
Yeah I’ve never been too fussed about the idea that you need to have been a top-player to be a powerful person in the game. When it comes to refs, coaches, administrators etc, how good or at what level they played the game seems to have very little impact on how good they are at their respective role.
That said, I agree with waterboy’s read of the play – what bigger advantage is there in the game than scoring a try? The defensive line made decisions based on the fact that Hodges wasn’t allowed to run behind the dummy runner – because up until this point the ruling seemed pretty clear that you weren’t allowed to do that – funnily enough when he did just that the defence wasn’t ready and he found a gaping hole. Harrigan’s wrong again.
July 6th 2012 @ 9:42am
mushi said | July 6th 2012 @ 9:42am | Report comment
Broken logic is broken
July 6th 2012 @ 9:46am
Ken said | July 6th 2012 @ 9:46am | Report comment
I thought my logic was elegant and communicated eloquently – and since you haven’t actually refuted any of it I’ll go on thinking that
July 6th 2012 @ 10:45am
mushi said | July 6th 2012 @ 10:45am | Report comment
Okay against my better judgement I’ll bash my head against this brick wall.
Even if the referee thought there was obstruction the try is the result of the advantage not the advantage itself. It wasn’t like an obstruction teleports you across the line grounding the ball.
Having a try as the outcome does not, in and of itself, provide evidence that the particular moment in time in question an unfair advantage was gained. It is broken logic.
Then to the “they didn’t expect…” line so in your version of events confusion arises because the defence believed a penalty should have been called and the referee didn’t call it.
For this to be the reason for calling a penalty you are saying a referee must rule a penalty simply because the defence thinks a penalty should be awarded even if he believes there was no offence committed. Broken logic.
July 6th 2012 @ 11:24am
Ken said | July 6th 2012 @ 11:24am | Report comment
Fair enough on the advantage call, it was a line based on language play but it’s your own logic that’s broken on the read of play.
The penalty should be called because the play itself was illegal. The defenses’s belief of illegality is only relevant because it caused the advantage that Thurston received. If the defense believed the play was illegal, but it actually wasn’t, then that’s their own problem. Harrigan’s explanation boils down to saying that Thurston’s play was illegal but there was no advantage so it doesn’t matter – this is plainly incorrect.
July 6th 2012 @ 11:26am
MemberforDobell/PLANKO said | July 6th 2012 @ 11:26am | Report comment
Mushi please Hodges slowed up and looked at the ref cause he knows that every game as he played while he was growing up he would have got pinged for that. Plain and simple the only reason why in the NRL and the SOO can we have a loose obstruction rules like we have now is because of television replays. You run that play on a park game he gets done every time.
July 6th 2012 @ 12:09pm
Dean - Surry Hills said | July 6th 2012 @ 12:09pm | Report comment
Classic Mushi, you’re a one-eyed Maroon politician – come second hand car dealer – and not unlike Harrigan who’s a back-flipping specialist when it comes to protecting his own.
Our elite players have had these rules drummed into them since they were toddlers. Every single player in the NRL knows that you cannot run behind a teammate whilst in possession of the ball and gain an advantage. Players will submit to a tackle rather than have a penalty awarded to the opposition – it happens on a weekly basis in NRL games.
There can be no justification to suddenly alter the ruling for the biggest game of the year.
The rest of the NRL season will now be hounded by similar instances of impartiality with every man and his dog attempting shepherd style plays.
Consistency is what the fans want.
July 6th 2012 @ 12:40pm
Matt said | July 6th 2012 @ 12:40pm | Report comment
You better tell Benji that! 10 minute highlight reel below with a ton plays behind players all deemed fine. Happens every week, it’s actually an uproar when they DO call obstruction when it didn’t alter the outcome. It is quite consistent.
July 6th 2012 @ 9:29am
Matt said | July 6th 2012 @ 9:29am | Report comment
“you dont have to be contacted by a dummy runner to be interfered with on a defensive play.”
Holy moley, are you suggesting decoy runners are DECOYS? They make the defence unsure of who to tackle? Oh, that’s a penalty AND a sin bin. Disgraceful.
July 6th 2012 @ 9:44am
Ken said | July 6th 2012 @ 9:44am | Report comment
The debate isn’t whether the play disorganised the defence, it obviously did, a gap was created and Hodges got through it – it’s whether the play was within the rules of the game. Decoy running is not part of the rules of RL, obstruction is – Decoy running is just a tactic, and it’s fine as long as it is used within the rules of obstruction.
I’m not sure where the sin bin came in? I might have missed that post, I certainly don’t agree with that – it should have been a penalty though.
July 6th 2012 @ 9:56am
Matt said | July 6th 2012 @ 9:56am | Report comment
That’s the thing – some people say that was an obstruction, I’d say that was a decoy. Hodges didn’t run into the gap behind the player, he went into a different gap. The only problem I had was contact by Hannant on Farah, but it was minimal and didn’t affect the outcome.
Fittler tried to prove it was a shepherd by showing origin footy that was a penalty. Except for the fact in those clips the player ran right behind their player *on the same line* and also touched them. Almost using them as a battering ram. That was not even slightly the same as what happened.
Haha, just fishing with the NSW supporters. Apparently half the QLD team should have been sent off the other night.
July 6th 2012 @ 10:05am
Matt said | July 6th 2012 @ 10:05am | Report comment
Here are some similar examples, there are a million but I don’t care enough to find them all.
38 seconds in (vs Manly). Decoy runner runs into the defence, Marshall runs straight through the same hole, all is well.
50 seconds – decoy runners going through the line with Marshall running *behind* them, and then going through the line after running around them.
4:40 – decoy runner shoulder charges the defender, ball is passed behind, off they go for a try.
This happens every week and is never a penalty…
July 6th 2012 @ 7:30pm
Dean - Surry Hills said | July 6th 2012 @ 7:30pm | Report comment
The first is a possible obstruction – not a shepherd. Both defenders attempt to tackle the decoy.
The second instance is a shepherd – but the man attempts to tackle Benji and is given a great shot in doing so.
His defence was no better than Dennis Denuto’s. The ref could have ruled either way in that instance.
The third is of what ???????
Show me two examples of the other million that you mention where a player runs behind his own to score a try.
July 7th 2012 @ 12:51am
boby said | July 7th 2012 @ 12:51am | Report comment
First one was not a shepherd as the play runner past behind the defender thats simply an obstruction.
Fair enough on the second one, and on the third one the attacker was shouldered by defender that was just a decoy play no obstruction or shepherd. The decoy runner was taken on suspicion. None of those showed a shepherd being given a try.
Watch this its 2004 grand final skip to 2:50 very similar circumstances
July 7th 2012 @ 7:09am
Matt said | July 7th 2012 @ 7:09am | Report comment
Shepherds that all resulted in tries (which is why on a highlights reel, hard to find non tries).
2nd one in particular, benji runs behind his defenders, then steps through a gap and they score. Pretty close to hodges, except he was much further away from hannant.
There’s a million examples, it happens every week like I said. Suddenly people think its a no try because it went against their team.
July 7th 2012 @ 12:49pm
soapit said | July 7th 2012 @ 12:49pm | Report comment
matt the 50 second one is the only one that is remotely similar and even in that one benji doesnt dummy to the player going through so was probably deemed too harsh to call him involved in the play. keep searching.
July 7th 2012 @ 1:03pm
soapit said | July 7th 2012 @ 1:03pm | Report comment
matt likes to have it both ways. he argues that the decoys are there to make it harder for the defence but at the same time that the decoys dont impede the defence.
July 7th 2012 @ 9:32pm
Matt said | July 7th 2012 @ 9:32pm | Report comment
Honest to god, I don’t think any of you have even watched a game of football in your life.
Decoy is a guy who runs pretending to get the ball. If the defender falls for it, it opens up a gap for the person who has the ball to run through. That’s not impeding the defence, and it’s not a penalty (as much as NSW fans wish it was). It’s *only* impeding if they run into the defence and actually hit a player and stop them making a tackle that would have otherwise made, or if the ball runner runs right behind them on the same line and the defender can’t grab them because they’re in the way (shepherd).
July 6th 2012 @ 8:35am
sledgeross said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:35am | Report comment
As an avid NSW fan, I can see why the try was awarded, but there are two aspects to this.
NSW did make a terrible read in defence, no doubt about it. Scott and Farah should have played the whistle, no doubt at all.
But tha fact remains there is no provision in teh law for bad defence, but there is for shepherding/obstruction. Hodges did run behind a player, which, technically, is illegal as it does “impede” the defence from making the correct choice. We usually see this applied to tries scored when a decoy runner hits the line but the ball is PASSED behind him.
So for mine, it should have been a no-try, but NSW should tackle players when they can to avoid this situation.
July 6th 2012 @ 9:06am
Jimbo Jones said | July 6th 2012 @ 9:06am | Report comment
Totally agree mate. I can see why they called it a try, but you should always try and stop the man crossing the line so that the Ref doesnt need to get involved. Tackle the man first, and then argue about the rulings.
July 6th 2012 @ 9:30am
KSI said | July 6th 2012 @ 9:30am | Report comment
2 years ago the channel 9 commentators were crying that these were being called up and penalised. They changed the interpretation and now they are whinging that they are trys.
July 6th 2012 @ 10:12am
Meesta Cool said | July 6th 2012 @ 10:12am | Report comment
great comment KSI, We make the mistake of listening to the opinions of these guys. as soon as they get the ruling they ask for, they go the other way… no wonder the refs get ‘hammered’…
f
July 6th 2012 @ 12:27pm
beyondthestump said | July 6th 2012 @ 12:27pm | Report comment
Couldn’t agree more KSI & Meesta Cool. I can’t count the number of times I have heard these same commentators complain about a disallowed try due to what they did not consider obstruction. Situation reversed? Stil not happy. I’m not convinced anymore that the referees are as bad as they are made out to be. They’re just under greater scrutiny by people who will change their opinion to suit their own needs and emotions. Fact is you see decoy runners run through the line every game and so long as they don’t make solid contact with the defensive line it isn’t a penalty.
Scott was not obstructed, that was just poor defense. Farah, well, I will concede there is an arguement there however I’m convinced that if he had followed the play instead of throwing his arms in the air he would have made the tackle and saved the try. What are we taught in every sport as kids? Play the whistle.
July 6th 2012 @ 1:52pm
steve b said | July 6th 2012 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
Even the great Wally Lewis said shepherd no try and he would be up ih arms if it happened to QLD ,,,if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck its a duck…Farah made the mistake by not running into Hannant and causing the ref to do something,,so its a try …But it was a shepherd every day of the week and Hodjes knew it ,,but like a good footballer he played to the whistle…and was the ultimate winner ….
July 6th 2012 @ 2:12pm
Matt said | July 6th 2012 @ 2:12pm | Report comment
Again, there are countless examples of similar plays that are awarded tries week in & week out and no-one cares.
To be honest the commentators opinions are to be taken with a grain of salt, sometimes they are on the money, other times they’re commenting based on rules 30 years ago. Or they’re taking a leaf from “gus’s rule book”.
July 6th 2012 @ 2:26pm
steve b said | July 6th 2012 @ 2:26pm | Report comment
And their are countless examples were they say no try ,,no consistency is the problem !!!
July 6th 2012 @ 2:34pm
Matt said | July 6th 2012 @ 2:34pm | Report comment
Only recent one I can think of is Bulldogs vs Storm, which NRL later said should have been awarded.
My understanding of the rule is: Did decoy runner interfere with the player physically (aka, tried to tackle guy with the ball but couldn’t) or did they just fall for the decoy. In this case, Farah was nowhere near anything and was never going to stop Hodges, so green light.
My only concern was the slight contact Hannant did make on Farah, decoy all day but don’t touch the opposition.
July 7th 2012 @ 12:44am
boby said | July 7th 2012 @ 12:44am | Report comment
There is a major difference between a decoy play and a shepherd. If Hodges past the ball to Thurston or who ever was on the other side fair enough but he ran around his decoy runner which is a shepherd every day of the week. If the great Wally Lewis said no try and is one of the most true blooded QLDers than I’m pretty sure it was a no try
July 7th 2012 @ 7:11am
Matt said | July 7th 2012 @ 7:11am | Report comment
People run behind their players all the time. Hannant WAS a decoy – he ran a line pretending he going to get the ball. Hodges went behind him, far away from the defense line where it didn’t matter.
July 6th 2012 @ 10:00am
eagleJack said | July 6th 2012 @ 10:00am | Report comment
It’s interesting that this new “clause” only appeared in 2011. Thanks Bill. Hopefully you sent the memo out to the clubs, players and coaches. Judging by the commentators reaction including the great Wally Lewis none of them were privy to it. So I do hope that he had the decency to inform those that matter at clubland.
But I will say that it is a breath of fresh air that they will use commonsense in this regard. Too often a poor defensive read is blamed on a decoy runner and a fair try is not awarded.
What is sad though is I can guarantee a Hodges style try will be disallowed over the next 9 rounds. But we are getting used to incompetent officials.
July 6th 2012 @ 10:11am
Matt said | July 6th 2012 @ 10:11am | Report comment
I know and I’m nothing more than an armchair supporter
Storm vs Bulldogs they disallowed, this they allowed, within the space of 1 week… but whenever you have different officials involved you will always get different interpretations, this will never change!
July 6th 2012 @ 10:00am
Will Sinclair said | July 6th 2012 @ 10:00am | Report comment
I posted this elsewhere – but this might be the place for it:
I can’t remember who I was arguing with yesterday about the Hodges try (Red Kev was definitely one), but I’ve changed my mind.
Apparently the rule was recently amended to include a clause about the dummy runner having to “prevent a defender from stopping a try being scored.”
That’s a crucial piece of information and, given that I don’t believe (on the balance of evidence) that Hannant prevented a Blues defender from stopping Hodges scoring the try… the decision was correct (in my opinion).
Anyway – don’t know if any of the boys from yesterday will see this, but if they do I’m happy to concede I was wrong!
July 6th 2012 @ 10:08am
Matt said | July 6th 2012 @ 10:08am | Report comment
Check out the video I posted above for just a few examples. Happens all the time – and this was before the new rule about “does the decoy runner impede the defence” rules which have actually made it easier to do.
However, Storm vs Bulldogs last week was disallowed, NRL later said should have been a try, so they still obviously have conflicting opinions in their ranks as to what does and doesn’t constitute being impeded.
July 7th 2012 @ 12:53pm
soapit said | July 7th 2012 @ 12:53pm | Report comment
if a decoy runner doesnt impede the defence why do they use them?
July 7th 2012 @ 9:38pm
Matt said | July 7th 2012 @ 9:38pm | Report comment
If they fall for a decoy, they CHOOSE to tackle them.
If they are impeded, the decoy has hit them and taken away that choice, and they can no longer get a good shot at the ball carrier. Often this ends up becoming a shepherd of sorts – decoy hits them, they try and tackle the ball carrier and can’t get a good shot at him (but would have if decoy hadn’t made contact, and/or the ball carrier has run right behind the decoy on the same line).
July 6th 2012 @ 10:23am
turbodewd said | July 6th 2012 @ 10:23am | Report comment
Beau Scott was never impeded and he was the player who should have tackled Hodges. Farah just waved his arms like a loon trying to get the ref’s attention – dumb move!
July 6th 2012 @ 10:31am
george said | July 6th 2012 @ 10:31am | Report comment
it was just an old fashion shepherd.you can pass behind the decoy runner but you can t run behind him.end of story NO TRY
July 6th 2012 @ 10:51am
Roarsome said | July 6th 2012 @ 10:51am | Report comment
Mals Fri, 06 Jul, 07:43AM
“If he had his time again, instead of throwing his hands in the air Farah would ensure he collided with Hannant.”
That’s Farah all over. What ever happened to making an attempt to tackle the guy with the ball? The two guys that Hodges ran between weren’t touched and Hannant was tackled on suspicion. Maybe Farah was throwing his arms in the air because his teammate made a bad defensive read.
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
July 6th 2012 @ 12:41pm
Luke M said | July 6th 2012 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
I cant believe rulings can be made on “opinion” So it can depend on which referee, what day it is, what shadows were on the field, who he likes better etc. Dont tell me refs dont have different opinions on different teams/players/coaches/set plays.
Rules are meant to black and white, otherwise they are not rules, they are “guidelines” or recommendations”.
July 6th 2012 @ 1:17pm
beyondthestump said | July 6th 2012 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
Problem is these “black and white” rules are written and interpreted by people. Fact of life Luke, you will never get 100% consistency where there are people involved. Our decisions are always based on perspective, past experiences and emotion. How many times do you see one coach complaining about a decision while the other coach is happy with it when they both saw the same thing? We will never change that no matter what rules you put in place or how good the refs are.
July 6th 2012 @ 2:47pm
Matt said | July 6th 2012 @ 2:47pm | Report comment
Correct!
I love my black and white, there is an awful lot of grey out there though…