NRL refs chief backs obstruction calls

In the mid fifties, the rules had to be changed in English Rugby League to stop a South African born, Wigan player from jumping over players that were attempting to tackle him by the legs, there will always be new ways of beating your opposition and there will always be people from other clubs that want to destroy the spectacle! -- as kids we loved to see this player do his leaps, now let's stop Slater from being even more b athletic and spectacular, - Rugby league doesn't like to see something SPECIAL in it's game.

Bellamy got a jump on the comp some years back with the MMA wrestling coaches. His next scoop will be some ring ins from Cirque du Soleil to show a 115kg Maori decoy how to delicately avoid contacting a hapless defender. Can't wait to see some handsprings and forward somersaults with a double twist entering the Storm back line movements later this year. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download it now [http://itunes.apple.com/au/app/the-roar/id327174726?mt=8].

You talk as though coaches are only just realising this. Wake up the chance for a defender to run into a lead runner to milk a penalty has been an issue for as long as I can remember. I'm sure if it is an obvious milking then an obstruction won't be called. Setting clear boundaries will mean that coaches and players will have to adapt. Lets see it play out before burning Anderson at the stake.

Totally agree, especially the first sentence. Consistency yes, but consistently correct is way better than consistent but just wrong.

That's bullsh*t!!! What if there's a switch of play with a long pass from one side of the ruck to the other, like we saw with the Knights try agst the Cowgirls, and an "obstruction" occurs on the other side from where the try is scored. It is just as wrong to watch a well crafted play result in a try only to be disallowed by an irrelevant obstruction as it is to watch a non-try like Hodges' Origin try given. The fact that this obstruction rule is polarising fans and experts proves that's it's CRAP!!! The honeymoon is over Anderson, talk about how you were gonna do this and that is cheap, you better start earning your money.

The best thing about the rule is that it gives clear boundaries for the players to work around, simple as that. Simple boundaries = players adapting and soon enough there will be no news on this rule whatsoever. When the thugs get their heads around the fact there is no more shoulder charge and stop doing it for the sake of 'it's a part of rugby league', there will be no more news on that ruling either.

And now i am being moderated again, time to shut my eyes and go for a weeks break. I changed my comment, might have got it just in time.

No, No Anderson does not realise the "Can of Worms" he has opened. Bellamy right now is getting all his players to move across sideways each player and fall over the decoy runner. If you think Bellamy or even other coaches have not thought of this yet. even the commontators mentioned it. It wont be long before all coaches are tripping over the decoy runner so play has to be stopped, or called back. No matter where on the field this happens, could be 50 metres away, will not matter, because under andersons rules, there is to be no compromise he said. I will watch every game this weekend and count the number of obstructions the refs call back, not the ones that just go to the video man. I counted at least 5 last weekend. the ref kept blowing his whistle for some player falling over a runner. Its a dogs breakfast and this is not the last you have heard of this, it will happen again..

Do you think before you write? Or actually watch the game and understand it? The case of the defenders tackling lead runners or decoys has always been an issue. BUT with what Anderson is proposing, if a lead runner makes an effort to move out of the way of a defender yet the defender misreads the play and tackles him then that will not be obstruction. You could see on the w/end many teams had their lead runners stop after they had broken through the line and then step back towards the posts. This means they are then aiming at the defenders inside shoulder. If the defender then tackles or runs into the defender then play on. It is simply a bad read. Don't be mistaken in thinking that lead runners don't know where everybody around them are. If they continue their line and hit the outside shoulder of a defender it will be obstruction. Relax oiks and just watch the game. Anderson so far is doing a good job.

Understand this, rugby league will become the most boring game in the world if he kills the decoy runner. Only passing along the line or kicks will be the only way to score. Decoys will get penalised because players will just run into them. I would. This guy could put a end to Origin, world cups and the NRL as we know it, all because he has tasted the Harrogan madness. He now thinks he is god. Someone stop him, now before it's too late. We are a billion dollar code, he is running it like a chook raffle.

The problem he has is everyone knows that those 2 tries were tries, we all know that. Daniel is now trying to tell every league fan they are not tries, this is the new ruling. All he had to fix was the simple error of players running lines behind other players, like Hodges did in Origin last year. A simple easy thing to fix. Now he has turned the whole issue into the biggest dogs breakfast the world has ever seen, and like someone above said, he is already making the mistakes of Harragon and will not listen to common sense. If the decoy is running a straight line, you have to have a man their to tackle him. The guy who is their to tackle him cant be in 2 places at once. He is pulling up tries where the ball is scored 50 metres away from where the decoy runner has gone through. Anderson has to go. He is a loose cannon if he does not change this ruling. It is wrong, plain wrong and the ref blowing his whistle every decoy runner who now hits another player will quickly kill this rule. If i was a coach, i would tell all my players to stumble over the decoy runners. No try will ever be allowed. Anderson has to be stopped, he is like the mad scientist who has discovered eletricity and plugged it into Frankenstein while yelling out, he's alive, He's ALIVE. Someone unplug Anderson or we will have another 3 years of this dogs breakfast before anything is done, and this is why rugby league is still amatuer. It is near perfect for a few common sense rulings. Why does he want to wreck the game, what has the game done to him that he wants the fans suffer 3 years before things get done. Just fix it, take you 2 minutes.

That is the obstruction he had to fix. Running behind another player. He has taken this right out of left field and turned it into a dogs breakfast. We will hear more screams over the next few weeks, mark my words. Gus Gould and Peter Sterling and even fans will want Andersons head on a platter. haha

In that same breath, you could argue that one player punching somebody, while not injuring them, does not deserve punishment. Whether or not it makes an impact on the game, it is a foul act and is punishable. The same must happen for the obstruction rule. Some of the calls I've seen this weekend I don't think really impacted the play - both the Sharks and the Warriors had obstructions called when if the defender wanted to, he could have made the tackle. The fact is, the ball carrier is not supposed to run behind one of his own players. This is the most clear-cut the rule will get and will cause the least controversy. In Origin, would you rather a rule that might seem excessive, but everyone knows why it was called,or would you prefer a rule that polarises opinion so that half the crowd have no idea how the referee came to that conclusion? My only issue is that this will make it easier for the defence to shut out games, making the attack rely more and more on kicks. The solution for that is simple: reduce times in the ruck. Make the defenders roll away as soon as the tackle is completed - the priority should lie with the attacking team playing the ball, not the markers getting into position. This will also tire players quicker, resulting in more attack. If you don't agree with me, re-watch a game from say, 1992. The flow of the attack in the games is far more compelling, despite the inferior skill sets compared to those of today. And that is coming from somebody that wasn't even born to see those games live.

It's taken three rounds but Anderson is making the same mistake as Harrigan - defending the indefensible. That for me is the most concerning issue. It's easy to accept an error if you hear the chief of refs own up and say it'll be remedied. But to say that is an obstruction when the obstruction has NO bearing on the try is worrisome. He is quoted earlier in his appointment saying that if it looks like a try or a no try then common sense will prevail. Well where's the common sense here Daniel, it looks like we're going back to the letter of the law again. For those that are saying it has to be this way otherwise there is too much room for subjective interpretation. Then the same argument applies here where refs are still applying the letter of the law to subjective interpretation.

Anderson is showing a lot more promise in this role than any of his predecessors. He's always had a smart football brain, and I was delighted when I heard that he was handed the job. This is as cut and dry as the obstruction rule will get, and if it is applied consistently THROUGHOUT the season, I believe that it is a sensible approach. Sure, there will be some discretion involved to determine who initiated contact, but 9 times out of 10 it is obvious whether a defender has been hampered, or whether he has simply made a bad read.

Slater on Winterstein was just as bad but because it was golden boy off camera he got off with a light charge...

Totally agreed +1 Anything that is consistant is a millions times better than what we had last year.

Wouldn't that be horrible, an obstruction call gone wrong at origin level. I cant imagine it. What if it was in, say, a deciding game 3? Imagine if it was, say, someone like justin hodges! That would be horrible!

All of this distracts from the fundamental part of the obstruction/shepard rule - ie: you can't run behind one of your own players. The Bulldogs do this at least ten times a game without punishment and it is infuriating.

Like i said, i was unaware of the Slater incident. I am yet to see if he was making a tackle or shoulder charging. I agree, if he did use his shoulder and not his arms wrapping, then yes, he should be charged. Why would i not want him charged. The judiscary did not charge him, so it must have been ok. He is allowed to come across and make a tackle.