NRL obstruction rule must stay as it is

weren't we here about 5 years ago with the same thing happening? They changed it then cause it couldnt continue that way. Anderson will change it if it continues to be ridiculous.

I agree, over the past few years I've been attending 10 plus games a year and the number of times when you eventually receive the video ref's decision, you turn to your mate beside you and would say " how have they come to that decision???"

ive been a fan of league ever since i can remember at least 39 years and last year and the year before was the only time i can ever recall having no idea if a try was to be awarded and if im not the only one then it SUCKS and just a wee bit freakining embarrasing .some one that isnt to familiar with the game asks was that a try and you had to answer i dont know like some imbecile ,so consistency wins ibecause without it the game is crap

Well they are calling whether they think the obstruction impaired the play, cause they need to make a decision on the try before they refer it upstairs. I see no problem with it being checked to ensure it was a correct decision, cause the evidence has to be their to overturn their decision with no doubt. It's a much better situation referees are in now, than they were last year.

The thing about this rule that annoys me the most is the fact that 9 times out of 10 the referee allows play to continue after one of these "obstructions" and then once a try is scored they go upstairs to check it. If the ref thinks it's an obstruction then by all means call it. But by allowing play to continue the referee is making a decision that it is not an obstruction. There are plenty of instances when teams are coming out of their own end, not in a scoring position, and decoy runners make contact with the defence, but because the ball carrier simply gets tackled and plays the ball, it's not an obstruction. THAT is inconsistency. Call all of them (and ruin the game as a spectacle while doing it) or call none of them.

It will still have it's place, it's just that it won't be overused as it is now, meaning that there is less likelyhood of any obstruction occurring. What is just as exciting is a player taking on the line to create a gap.

the attacking team has to adjust. why is it too difficult for decoy runners to be aware that a defender will be trying to milk and the step inside or pull up early as required.

The second man play is exciting ti watch live. Take that away and you will lessen the entertainment value. I am a Storm supporter and take AFL fans to the game. They love the precision of the well executed second man play.

I'm afraid I have to agree with Adam Bishop. What this rule is doing is destroying a creative element of the game. Doesnt take much figuring out to realise that defensive players seeing these clever bits of strategy will increasingly ensure that the decoy running through, is run into. That way all these strategies will be lost to the game. The issue raised about Fittler's claim is I think irrelevant because there will always be a range of strategies in place otherwise the team becomes too predictable. For example I saw in a recent game Foran using the old Andrew Johns banana kick to almost put Stewart over and then a Cherry-Evans neatly delayed pass that put Lawrence through for a big run. These skills will always remain because they are successful. The multiple decoy play MUST also remain as part of the game. Its attractive, skilllful and deserves a try if its achieved. My answer to this, and it aint rocket science, is that if a player is committed to tackle a decoy runner, then its his error. If the decoy runner intentionally runs into the defending player, then consideration must be given for interference. However, if the player taken out is no where near where the try is scored and would have no chance of reaching the try scorer, and other defensive players arent by that action impeded, then the try should be allowed. Surely the two factors here are the question of shepherding, or stopping a defensive player from tackling the try scorer or a link in the passing chain, that he could ordinarily have tackled had he not been impeded. Too many of these tries are being knocked back because of players seemingly being taken out and having no chance of having been able to stop the try ordinarily. I know this puts a lot more responsibility on the refs and video refs, but surely common sense should prevail in their decision making. For a fan, the present system is very annoying, especially when you know the player seemingly taken out had no chance of stopping the try anyway.

What happened to Anderson' comment at the start of his tenure that if it looks like a try then its a try and vice versa. I guess it's not so easy after all aye Ando?

I totally agree. Lets see how many fans continue to watch a game when their teams get robbed by ridiculous decisions.

Dogs of War, unfortunately I can't see that happening. The game has got to a point whereby it's almost impossible to play the game in any other way to the way it's being played. Essentially every game is the same and every team plays the same. You return the kick, 3 hit ups, a lateral spread and kick and it starts all over again. I'm not sure how they fix it. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download it now [http://itunes.apple.com/au/app/the-roar/id327174726?mt=8].

I actually liked what Freddy Fittler said about obstruction the other night. He said he would like to see a change in how teams attack cause currently there is an overuse of the second man play, and most teams use the same play. He would like to see more playmakers take on the line a little more. I agree with that, and by doing so, we will see a lot more variety in how teams attack, and hopefully see more than 2-3 different styles across the league.

I guess the question is, what is the higher priority, consistency or entertainment? At the end of the day, rugby league is a product. People get out to the games and watch it on TV because it is a fun and exciting game to watch, not because they are looking for 80 minutes of accurate interpretation. The football market in Australia is a very crowded space, and the NRL must know that there are now three other codes competing more vigorously than ever for its slice of the pie. The desires of the fans should always be treated with the upmost respect because they are the games' customers. I can tell you that many fans I have spoken to about this have the universal opinion that the game is not as much fun to watch anymore. These rule interpretations are impinging on creativity and restricting off the ball activity. I'm being serious when I say this, we are going down the pathway of having no such thing as a second man play, even Craig Bellamy alluded to this prospect in a press conference this year. Give the fans what they want first, then listen to the coaches second. If anybody is not convinced, track down a copy of a game in the late 90's, not too long ago the game was free flowing, players were more likely to throw the ball around and attack. Yes the players were not as big, and the speed was not quite as fast, but bugger it, it was bloody fun to watch. I miss it. Surely consistency is achievable for video referees with this rule without being so black and white. How difficult is it for a ref to determine, yes that player had no chance of making the tackle? Obstructions should be obvious or let the play go. The onus should be to prove there IS an obstruction, not that there ISN'T one. It's already a matter of course for on-fiield refs to 'check' for a 'possible' obstruction. C'mon refs, there are four of you out there, you guys should know if you saw something, don't just send every creative try upstairs to cover your backsides.

correctamoondo.