Manly call for obstruction clarification
Related coverage
Manly players have called upon the NRL to provide clarification on the obstruction rule as the controversial law threatens to overshadow the upcoming final series.
Sea Eagles co-captain Jamie Lyon and prop Brent Kite have strongly backed coach Geoff Toovey’s call that uncertainty over the obstruction rule could cause mass confusion during the business end of the season.
“It is still confusing, you just don’t want games to be decided by something like that,” Lyon said.
“They have to come out and fix it and everybody has to come on board with it. People don’t know what an obstruction is and it probably goes back to the Origin one (Justin Hodges’ try in Origin III).
“Where it is not cut and dry something has to be done about it. Some seem to be penalised and some don’t.”
Kite joined Lyon in saying the awarding of the Hodges try, in which he clearly ran behind a fellow Queensland player before scoring, had spread confusion throughout the NRL ranks.
“It is pretty hard to understand,” Kite said.
“Like everyone else (I thought) the Origin try was just a blatant obstruction and it has muddied the waters a bit, we need some clarity and consistency.
“I’m pretty clear on what an obstruction is and isn’t, but the interpretation sometimes can be confusing. We are honestly just looking at the replays on the screen sometimes with fingers crossed because they can go either way.
“I think one of their indicators has been that lead runner is not going to have an affect upon the play. It seems a little too broad.
“That was the line given to justify the Hodges try in Origin. But it brings it all down to interpretation.
“Some clear indicators would be good.”
South Sydney coach Michael Maguire and Gold Coast mentor John Cartwright joined Toovey in expressing their displeasure with refereeing decisions over the weekend regarding obstructions.
But referees coach Bill Harrigan said the NRL would not be issuing any widespread edicts in regard to the rule four weeks out from the final series.
“I would be the first to admit that during the season we have made some incorrect decisions,” Harrigan said.
“People have to accept that like players and coaches, the referees are going to make mistakes.
“But because the rule is subjective there is always going to be disagreement in regard to it. It is not totally black and white. In one instance for example I have had one coach say to me ‘there is no way that is a try Billy’ while another coach did not have a problem with it.
“We laid out the guidelines at the start of the season for everyone – coaches, players, the media and they haven’t changed.
“And we the referees are working hard to ensure that we continue to follow those guidelines and try to get every decision correct.”
© AAP 2013Sport, all day long. Does this sound too good to be true? We're searching for a Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. If you're a sales star who doesn't mind a hit, kick, throw, or cycle, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
The Crowd Says (10) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
- Explore:
- Manly Sea Eagles, NRL, Rugby League
August 8th 2012 @ 8:42am
soapit said | August 8th 2012 @ 8:42am | Report comment
hopefully they get some coaches and ex players involved so it doesnt just end up as a exercise for the nrl to justify awarding that hodges try. time to put that one into history and get the rule sorted clearly for the future.
it certainly has gotten muddy. in my opinion if you run behind your own player the benefit of the doubt should go to the defender so unless there was absolutely no disadvantage to the defensive line its a penalty. its a game of split seconds and inches so even a slight touch or change of direction can put you in a much worse position to defend.
August 8th 2012 @ 9:18am
eagleJack said | August 8th 2012 @ 9:18am | Report comment
Daniel Anderson tweeted during the match “Just watched Glenn Hall literally dive across Anthony Watmough to milk a No Try decision. Oh dear. What replays of what game do the refs watch”
Pretty much sums up everyone’s feelings with the video refs at the moment. That was a disgraceful decision and there was absolutely no justification to rule in favour of the defensive player, who was never impeded by the lead runner.
But I don’t blame the refs. I blame the material they are working with. The refs are so confused about the rules themselves that they are bound to make incorrect decisions more often than not. Hopefully Harrigan does hold a review at years end with a distinct purpose to improve the current situation.
But I won’t be holding my breath with Hollywood. Cause the more the refs are in the spotlight, the more he is. Which is exactly how he likes it.
August 8th 2012 @ 9:36am
Nafe said | August 8th 2012 @ 9:36am | Report comment
It really shouldn’t matter if the defence was impeded or not. The defender lost sight of the player he’s defending against to therefore was made at a disadvantage, Maybe the defender had to balk at his run or take an extra step or two to the side rather than an angled defensive run which left a small hole for the outside defender to watch.
If the attackers run behind their own player, Penalty. These are first grade footballers who should be able to get out of the way.
August 8th 2012 @ 12:17pm
Gareth said | August 8th 2012 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
But even that’s not black and white. “Behind” in relation to what? The try line? Each player on the side that’s defending? The way the player is facing?
Besides the symantics of it, you can pretty much guarantee a fullback/winger fielding a deep kick will run “behind” plenty of teammates as they look to bring the ball centre field, even if those teammates are 10-20m downfield.
For me, the problem isn’t necessarily with the way obstruction is called, it’s with simulation. Because there’s no penalty for deliberately bumping into an attacker, throwing your arms in the air and having a whinge, or taking an elaborate dive when someone brushes past you, then it’s going to happen, and it’s going to obscure the way legitimate penalties are called. If they started giving 10 minutes in the bin for a professional foul every time a defender made a big theatrical act of being obstructed, players would stop doing it.
Likewise when an attacker holds a tackler in the ruck so he can’t get clear, milking in the ruck, staying down so the video ref will look at a tackle, etc. As long as there’s no penalty for that sort of “gamesmanship” it’ll be part of the game.
August 8th 2012 @ 11:15am
Edward Kelly said | August 8th 2012 @ 11:15am | Report comment
Most fans and most players seem to know the rule and it is only since S of O that refs have some confusion, every comment so far has been spot on. Refs sort it out.
Eaglejack spotted it, we now have diving in the NRL, and it wasn’t only Glenn Hall, how many times on the weekend did some-one stay down in hope of a video ref replay and penalty, I saw at least 5 times and some were for pretty soft contact. If we are not to become soccer, players diving has to be stopped.
August 8th 2012 @ 1:33pm
Stu said | August 8th 2012 @ 1:33pm | Report comment
Something like ‘bringing the game into disrepute’ akin to what they charge them with in cricket.
August 8th 2012 @ 1:30pm
Stu said | August 8th 2012 @ 1:30pm | Report comment
I disagree that individual refs are inconsistent if that is what being suggested. I think different referees interpret the rule in different ways and are internally consistent inside their own rulings (mostly)…just potentially not consistent with their colleagues which leaves inconsistencies between different refs..
The problem is Benefit of the Doubt.
I know that sounds completely unrelated but think of it in this respect (if you can be bothered reading on):
(i) Prior to the ‘benefit of the doubt’ rule being adopted by the NRL the approach by the refereeing community was, by logical necessity, one of a black and white dichotomy. In other words, it either “is” or it “isn’t”.
(ii) Benefit of the doubt was introduced into the rules which allowed the referees one thing they had not previously had: wide discretion.
The process that seems to be undertaken by the referees for benefit of the Doubt is one whereby the referee reviews the video footage or what he has seen first person (the evidence) and then makes a determination. That determination is one of three:
(a) Try
(b) No Try
(c) Benefit of the Doubt
I confess that I have yet to have a thorough look through the press releases at the time of introducing the rule of Benefit of the Doubt to the game as to the motivations behind its introduction. I suspect, with meaning to slander its introduction, that it was designed to create more tries. More tries = more entertainment value. More entertainment value = more gate takings and higher television ratings.
Unofrtunately, the result of the introduction of the Benefit of the Doubt Rule (“BOD”) has been the State of Origin I try to Greg Inglis (by implication for the reasoning below) and the blow up by Shane Flanagan about the Wade Graham try earlier this year.
BOD has introduced into the refereeing psychie discretionary decision making as a matter of course.
With great respect to referees, they are there to make as few discretionary decisions as possible. They are there to interpret their observations, the facts as they see it, and apply a set of rules or laws of the game inflexibly. That leads to consistency.
The matter has now come to a head with the obstruction rulings. Referees either:
(1) have not been provided with a comprehensive setof rules that defines what an obstruction is (the governing body’s fault); or,
(2) have failed in establishing an interpretation and ensuring its enforcement is consistent between individual referees.
*There is a third potential: that the overseeing body for the referees and the head referee keep changing the way to apply obstruction from week to week as they seek to manage complaints etc.
What amazes me with commentators, particularly those on Channel 9, is the encouragement for referees to make a decision in the ‘spirit of the game’, Listening to Phil gould comment that a player shouldn’t be penalised for dislodging a ball because he opines that the player wasn’t carrying it properly, or, a opining that a contact with the head isn’t a penalty because it is an accident.
What commentators such as these are inviting is the exercise of discretion. Discretion is a matter that is exercised in light of the circumstances, by an individual with a subjective view point. It is a recipe for INCONSISTENCY. Different refs making diferent decisions because they are confronted by different factual contexts.
Distilling what the spectator wants: we want CONSISTENCY.
The consistency which we seek is premised on INFLEXIBLE rules that provide for pre-determined outcomes once the criteria or elements constituing a breach of that rule have been satisfied. Apparently coaches want that too…
Spectators don’t want referees using their discretion. That invites a third team into the 80 minute competition.
Referees were never, prior to BOD being introduced, asked to form an opinion based on a value judgment or whether they think there is a doubt and whether a team should then, as a result, receive benefit from that doubt. Whilst that is a general statement, I might contain it slightly be saying that whilst there has always been discretion, there were less elements (no video or slow motion for instance) that adds more variables and invites the use of more discretion.
Now that the refs have been invited to the discretion party, they seem to be getting used to exercising that discretion with respect to all point scoring scenarios. That of course includes ‘obstruction’.
The refereeing community as a result is under stress, they react from week to week with interpretations. The interpretations change which causes further inconcsistency.
SOLUTION: change the rule. Make it clear. Provide elements that need to be satisfied that a referee can ‘tick off’ and then make an INFLEXIBLE decision. Remove as much discretion in refereeing as possible and return it to what it should be ‘interpretation’.
As an aside…
At least the contact with head rule seems to be applied inflexibly. I appreciate that some won’t agree but the follpwing people owe duties of care to the players int he NRL:
(i) other players
(ii) the NRL as the administrative body; and,
(iii) the referees.
This is both a legal duty and a moral one.Despite complaints about accidents occurring and comments such as ‘its a rough game that’s what you expect’, none of us as spectators, I hope, would wish any player, such as Michael Greenfield for the Melbourne Storm (just this year) or the infamous Jarrod McCracken affair (that did go to Court pre the introduction of the Civil Liability Act in NSW), a head, neck or brain injury. It is a coupe that the NRL have forced the players to bear this duty of care towards each other and that the rule has been applied inflexibly for the most part.
Can we get something similar for obstruction? An inflexible application of a rule that is both specific and understandable…
…not if they read this comment first.
August 8th 2012 @ 5:44pm
dan said | August 8th 2012 @ 5:44pm | Report comment
Wow Stu. You pretty much say it all, and well too I might add. It never ceases to amaze me the things that come from Phil Goulds mouth. He chops and changes from being an ex footballer/commentator/fan and wanting common sense and a toughen up or respect the ball attitude to wanting the rules laid out in black and white..(coach or club affiliate), depending on what mood he is in…he has a very astute football brain and at times can have me in hysterics with his commentary but he needs to stop commentating strictly on what mood he is in at the time. Unfortunately it is the media (papers, commentators and news reports) that fuel the speculation and uncertainty that is the NRL. Years ago, before video referees , coaches, players and spectators alike accepted that referees make mistakes and took solice in the fact that on law of averages they would get their rub of the green..currently , I think the two refs and the video ref has bred an attitude that there should be NO mistakes made at all by any officials at ANY time, which is quite simply unrealistic and a great games talking point will invariably be about a decision. ….the answer? Not sure…maybe the “challenge” for captains for the video to be viewed on the sideline (by the game ref, not a guy in the box) .. or simply scrap the video ref and go back to referees making decisions. Highly unlikely I realise, but it is something this little black duck would support…then when a call goes against your team, bad luck, but bring on that law if averages
August 9th 2012 @ 3:37pm
Albo said | August 9th 2012 @ 3:37pm | Report comment
Well stated Stu !
Unfortunately in Rugby League, as for most other team sports involving subjective decision making by officials, there will always be mistakes occurring. I agree with you that we must strive to eliminate as much as possible this subjectivity so that “black or white” are the only two choices. This will be hard, however, without completely impacting on the form of the game as it is played today. And at the end of the day we will often still be getting back to someone making a subjective decision on the play whether via technology or unassisted.
Should we rely on more technology to sort out decisions and therefore risk slowing the game down to gridiron pace or worse ? Or should we eliminate the technology altogether and leave it all to the man in the middle, hoping it will be “swings and roundabouts” with the poor decisions over the season ?
To me the obstruction rule should be clear cut. Did the defensive team or offensive team do something illegal on the play to help or hinder the man with the ball? Without stopping the play after every play the ball ( like gridiron) we have chosen to do it only on try scoring plays. Yes or no ? Was the dummy runner interfering with the defensive line allowing the ball carrier an advantage to score ? To me this has to be reviewed on the video replay as the referee cannot neccessarily determine what happened when multiple bodies were in motion around the ball. Without banning dummy runners altogether you will still come down to a subjective decision by someone as to whether everything on the play was legal or not.
My biggest bugbear in the game today is the stripping the ball ( or not) rule.
The subjectiveness here is on display in nearly every tackle.
I hate it. With 3 or more players now getting involved in every tackle and two of them at least trying to rip off the ball carrier’s ball carrying arm, how do you judge if it is a strip or adjudged that ridiculous “poor ball security” issue? But what do you do ? Ban tackles above the waist and turn the game into an offload frenzy ? Limit the number in the tackles ?
I believe whilst ever we have this penchant for speeding up the game to a break neck speed, these subjective decision making errors will only increase. With 12 player interchanges, multiple on field referees needed to keep up with the speed of this modern game and video technology working overtime, we will continue to have controversy.
My solution would be to slow the game down a bit. Get rid of the interchange rule altogether ! Go back to 4 replacements on the bench, but once you are replaced you are out of the game ! That way the fittest players will survive, the tackles will have less numbers in them ripping at the ball, and as the teams tire, more space is available for the little guys to find gaps in the defence ! Perhaps we might even see the resurrection of the smaller player with endurance and tacticial skills rather than solely these muscle bound speed robots that are currently being developed in the juniors to last 15 -20 minutes in two periods on the field ! Who knows maybe we might even develop a few on-field generals to vy for State of Origin roles to take on QLD at last ?
August 10th 2012 @ 4:56pm
Stu said | August 10th 2012 @ 4:56pm | Report comment
Totally agree with slowing the game down if that improves refereeing and stams out what might otherwise be described as niggles.
One of the Queensland players players during origin mentioned in an interview that their play the ball speed was slower than the New South Wales team and that it had been in the series the year before. I think he said “it’s not the speed you play its what you do with the ball that counts.”
AFL have this problem as well, Instead of actually practising goal kicking they do fitness training. I appreciate it is an intense sport but when fitness and ‘niggles’ or ‘tricks’ override actual ball handling skill or kicking skill or the like then the nature of the game has changed.
Of course, we could always go to an NFL idea of stopping the play and making everyone get on side for every tackle. Now that would be amusing.