- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Unfortunately for Paul Green, coach of the North Queensland Cowboys, the Australian TV Week Logie Award nominees were announced at the beginning of April.
This prevented him from making a suggestion that Jamie Lyon be considered as a nominee in the highly-esteemed ‘Best Actor’ category.
In case you missed it, following the Cowboys 34 points to 18 victory over the Manly Sea Eagles on Saturday evening, Paul Green fronted the media and announced that Lyon “should be nominated for a BAFTA, a Golden Globe and an Academy Award”.
Green was alluding to what he believed to be a Jamie Lyon ‘dive’ in the 50th minute of the game which resulted in the sending of a Michael Morgan try to the the Bunker, ultimately to have the Bunker rule no try on the basis of obstruction.
Following the decision, there was outcry. Twitter exploded. Comparisons were drawn to diving in the EPL. Fans complained that they were confused by the rule. Lyon, was likened to a swan. Andrew Voss suggested that Linnett’s contact with Lyon “wouldn’t have knocked a maggot off a chop” and during the half time break Mark Gasnier declared that he was so frustrated with the obstruction rule that if he was a fan at home with the “choice of switching on or flicking off”, that he would make the decision to flick off.
It was not the only obstruction decision which caused controversy on the weekend. Benji Marshall was also denied late in the first half of the Dragons game against the Warriors despite some very fancy footwork. Most fans were baffled initially as to why Gavin Badger sent the ruling to the Bunker, but Tyson Frizell was ruled to have run into a defender, impeding that defender from remaining in the Warriors defensive line and pushing up and sliding with his teammates. End result – no try, obstruction.
More than any other rule, the obstruction rule is the one that has caused the most controversy this year.
The NRL just can’t seem to get it right.
Was it simpler several years ago when the rule was that the ball carrier could not run behind one of his team mates? This rule changed three years ago and the responsibility was instead placed on the decoy runner not to initiate contact with the defensive line.
This seemingly made the rule ‘black and white’ with discretion in obstruction rulings being discouraged in favour of a ‘black and white’ interpretation of the rule. This interpretation saw referee’s increasingly ruling in the following way. If an attacking player makes contact with the defensive line, thereby impeding the defensive structure this is ruled as an obstruction. What is becoming increasingly irrelevant is whether, without the obstruction, the player obstructed could have prevented the eventual try.
I think, that on the whole, taking a ‘black and white’ approach has seen greater consistency. Now, as soon as an attacking player makes contact with the defensive line in the lead-up to a try, I know that an obstruction ruling will be the likely result.
Despite this, the ‘black and white’ nature of the rule has led to some problems. While a ‘black and white’ approach might be simpler, officials have demonstrated that the rule does not always allow them to rule appropriately in circumstances where players lay down to milk a penalty or where players take a dive. If the rule continues to be applied this way, then this may lead to players being coached to go to ground in circumstances where they think they can milk the penalty.
Also causing confusion is that the footage that the Bunker is using to make a decision is not the same footage which is being played by the broadcasters. This does nothing but add to the confusion. Not only is different footage being used, but fans are being influenced by the commentary teams (no matter which channel they are watching) and their running analysis on the try.
So where to from here?
We as fans cannot have it both ways. We either want a rule that is ‘black and white’ or one which is ‘grey’ and either way, a $10-million Bunker will not prevent mistakes being made by officials.
Should discretion in rulings be encouraged, there will be circumstances where the officials get it wrong. Even though it may seem to disadvantage the attacking team at times, I would much rather a ‘black and white’ approach be taken.
Paul Green indicated that there will be a coaches meeting this week, with the obstruction rule to be put on the agenda. Perhaps instead of debating how to make a ‘black and white’ even more bullet-proof, the coaches should commit to refusing to coach their players in milking penalties or diving (I know this will never happen).
As fans, transparency and consistency are what we want.
What I think would be helpful would be for commentators to stop speaking as soon as a decision has been sent to the Bunker. Instead of listening to the commentary team analyse the try, play by play, I would much rather listen to the match review officials step me through, play by play, and explain at each point why they are making the decision they are making.
At least then, we as fans have the opportunity to see if the rule is being applied consistently and we may even learn something from the people that are meant to know the rules best of all.
And for the record, my view on the Saturday night decision was that it should have been ruled a try on the basis that Jamie Lyon was the one that initiated contact with Kane Linnett. As for Jamie Lyon himself, I think he has that BAFTA award in the bag.
This is @mary__kaye from @ladieswholeague.