“Rugby league is a simple game.” Don’t you wish you had a dollar for every time you’ve heard that, especially over the past fortnight as the obstruction rule and it’s interpretation has come under fire.
If you look at it as a game of five tackles of bash and barge then kick, then yeah it is. But rugby league has far more intricacies in its game play than it’s ever given credit for.
In most team ball sports where the objective is to get the ball to a target – be it a try, a goal or a basket – players don’t have to be behind the ball carrier to be able to receive a legal pass.
In soccer if you’re trapped at your own end, you can hoof it downfield directly to one of your own team mates. Ditto AFL. American football is largely about players heading down field in front of the ball to receive a pass. It applies to almost all sports of this nature – basketball, netball, polo, water polo, hockey, ice hockey, Gaelic football, hurling, European handball.
The exception is the two rugby codes. In those games, players need to be behind the ball carrier to receive a pass. If you want to hoof the ball downfield to get out of trouble, your teammates have to be behind you to make a legal play at the ball or its catcher.
There’s no code war here. All of the sports mentioned have intricacies in rules and tactics that make them unique and enjoyable. But this is what makes the rugby versions unique – particularly in terms of attacking strategy.
When you take into account that you can’t just bang the ball over the defence to a teammate further down field, rugby league isn’t necessarily that simple. If you want to unlock a defensive line you have to find a way to go around or through, as opposed to going over. That’s where the art in rugby league is. Not having attacking players in front of the ball is not just part of the game, it exists in its very essence.
Sometimes opportunities are created by a big bopper bashing his way through – it’s a simple game remember. More often though, it comes about by creating a numerical advantage because the attack has made the defence think they are going to do one thing but then do something else.
Decoy plays have always been part of that deception. This was something that was drilled into me during my playing days 30-plus years ago. We were encouraged to yell out “my ball!” or something similar to add to the subterfuge. What didn’t happen was decoy runners being sent downfield ahead of the ball like they are now. Certainly not three decoy runners on the same play. This is a relatively modern addition to rugby league.
Over the past 30 years as we’ve moved into full-time professionalism, players have become bigger and faster. Rules have been put in place to facilitate end to end football and not have 80% of the game played between the 40 metre lines. The field has effectively become smaller as a result.
Decoy or second man plays have become increasingly important in unlocking that defensive line. We can’t wind them back.
Defenders are milking it now, no doubt. In the Dragons v Sea Eagles game on the weekend, Haumole Olakau’atu – surely one of the most intimidating humans on the planet – went down softer than an Easter egg left in the sun. Watch the replay and Luciano Leilua was clearly sent through in front of the ball. He was never getting the ball and the pass went through a couple of metres behind him. The Dragons gave Olakau’atu the opportunity to sharpen his acting skills
“He can’t just disappear, what’s he supposed to do?” is another saying used ad nauseum. If you want your answer have a look at the Tyrell Sloan try and the Mikaele Ravalawa no-try in the first half of the same. The Dragons ran almost identical plays, but their decoy runners didn’t get in the way of the defence. They got it right. All good.
Decoy runners have options. They can choose to not stop in the defensive line, they can change their line and run at the inside shoulder, they can pull up short, they can not get in the fullback’s way. Their life is sometimes made harder by academy award winning performances by defenders. More often though, it’s just plain old poor execution.
Ultimately, you send a player through in front of the ball, you’re rolling the dice. That’s exactly how it should be.
Going back 10-15 years, referees had complete discretion in determining obstruction plays. They made calls based on estimates of whether the defender had initiated the contact, whether the defender would have got there, etc. It worked fine.
Then came the waves of decoy runners. Referees were having to make multiple obstruction calls on most tries. The subjective approach was, well… subjective. And weren’t we all up in arms about it. Ironically, a lot of the commentators who are now unloading on referees for not having “a feel for the game” were the same ones saying “take the subjectivity out of it, we need black and white interpretations.”
That’s pretty much the way the game has gone. If you’re in front of the ball and you interfere with a defender it will be a penalty. It’s a much better system than the bunker referee trying to determine the intent of the defender and whether he was capable of “getting there” and stopping the try.
That’s what scares me about Graham Annesley recently saying that the system isn’t black and white and that referees are supposed to use discretion in determining obstruction. World class back flip on its way? Referees hung out to dry? That’s bad, but are we on the brink of decisions that may impact the essence of the game.
Glory Bound
Roar Rookie
There needs to be some room left within the rules for the referees and the bunker to apply common sense and, based on that, an 'interpretation of the rules' given that the game and all incidents are not black and white but nuanced by shades of grey.
Kent Dorfman
Roar Rookie
if decoy runners are ahead of the ball - it's on them.
criag
Roar Rookie
I agree there was a chance he could get there. What I don’t agree with is that JWH glancing in his direction means any more than the fact that Edwards had a good view of JWH. A freight train doesn’t stop that quick. Did Edwards run intentionally into Jared? Maybe. After all, he did manage to swerve around the referee. What I’m confused about is the fact (according to NRL360) that although the ref rules black and white, the bunker has the discretionary powers, it’s why Penrith weren’t penalised when they scored. Speaking of ‘looking’, I believe the bunker is often fooled by attackers running into players to catch bombs when they say “the player never takes his eye off the ball”…there is such as thing as peripheral vision.
London Panther
Roar Rookie
The other factor is showing how close Gee got to where the ball was planted and he loafed across the field. Edwards was travelling a lot faster (he had made up about 5 metres on Gee in the moments leading up to the collision). The issue is that you need to fall over; because if you don’t, you don’t get the penalty. In the Manu no try, Luai was obstructed (lead runner hit outside shoulder) and he was the defender one in from the man (may) marking Manu. But instead of falling, Luai stayed on his feet but had to go around the player obstructing, meaning he was behind the play and couldn’t slide. This isolated May with Manu, and Manu was good enough to get past May one-on-one. But if Luai falls over, it is a penalty every time.
London Panther
Roar Rookie
I think the proximity of the referee to the play when Manu gets the ball down versus how much ground Edwards made on him in the few moments before the collision also demonstrates that Edwards had a better than even chance of getting involved in the play. And I didn’t think Martin did hit Keary (and if he did, it was on the outside shoulder).
NQR
Roar Rookie
Even the Ref agreed with us I think on this. It’s to much bunker upsetting us with silly over reaching I feel TB.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Hahaha..l yeah, “official” may have been over stating it, but 1% because he might have done a hammy is worse… :laughing: :laughing:
The Barry
Roar Guru
Well if Edwards didn’t hit JWH a metre in front of the line, it’s 50cm That’s also taking into account him having to avoid the ref Haggling over that is the definition of minutiae
mushi
Roar Guru
If that’s a metre or so I’m 5 metres tall. There is evidence of the deviation on the very tracker you posted which presumably is accurate on the line ran. I’m more refuting your deliberate assertion
The Barry
Roar Guru
But all that needs to be established is that Edwards was denied the opportunity to be involved in the play 21 kph is almost jogging to get there, so regardless of any other vagaries it’s hard to argue he wasn’t denied an opportunity
mushi
Roar Guru
The tracker has him accelerating as he's falling backwards so they've assumed he's stopped deceleration and accelerated and by a decent rate. Also it assumes no deceleration as he nears other players including as he moves through the bodies of his own team mates which Newton might disagree with Yes he's capable of it but that representation has lots of question marks,
The Barry
Roar Guru
Looks to me like he decelerated in two strides and then accelerated in two strides as he got past the ref… The tracker still has him getting there if he runs at 21 kph and he’s capable of being much faster than that distance / time isn’t a particularly difficult calculation… I guess I’m happy to accept the FST because it aligns with how I saw it. The “Edwards had no chance of getting there” argument didn’t hold much water for me after I’d watched it a couple of times…
The Barry
Roar Guru
Fair enough… :laughing: But if all of us, with our combined rugby league knowledge can’t agree on whether it was or wasn’t an obstruction… what hope do the referees have?
The Barry
Roar Guru
But Edwards is still a metre or so in from the try line when he hits JWH so he can’t have deviated that much. He also accelerates knowing he’s got to get to the corner Anyway we’re debating minutiae now and there’s no proof either of us is right or wrong. I think it shows that there’s no way having a subjective “would he have got there” approach does anything to reduce controversy…
mushi
Roar Guru
Well based on the fox sports tracker.. Worth noting he was decelerating to get around the referee but the FST seems to just erase that and ramp it straight back up.
mushi
Roar Guru
Hmm my replay looks different. When Jwh looks at Edwards he's running a line that's slightly towards the roosters across field from a metre or so in from the try line. What happens JWH is turning his head back though is the referee slightly checks his movement so Edwards goes Penrith side of him, hence he hits JWH around the line. He definitely deviated otherwise he couldn't have hit him from the originalline, but he deviates to avoid the referee (because he has to) rather than to hit JWH. But by then JWH has his back turned so instead of clearing the spot by 2 metres he's smack bang in the way. If he takes 2 more steps he's fine, which he should have.
farkurnell
Roar Rookie
I still stand by my original “Opinion” that D.E’s chances of legally preventing the Manu try was a “1 percenter”.As opposed to you “Official Verdict” , that has as much credibility as a Bruce Lehrmann Affidavit.
The Barry
Roar Guru
I agree with all of that except Edwards may have made a difference to Manu scoring. Manu ended up upside down and grounding the ball behind his head. It wouldn’t take too much to dislodge the ball But as you know, this is about Edwards being denied the opportunity not really about if he gets there or what happens when he gets there…
EagleWal
Roar Rookie
I was gobsmacked when they first disallowed the try however: I do believe he could have ‘got there’. I do believe JWH tried to impede Dylan. I do believe Dylan milked the impact. I do believe he should not have to dodge an attacking player. I doubt he would have made the difference in scoring. In hindsight I do believe the correct decision was made….
NQR
Roar Rookie
I’m seeing what you’re seeing ( Edwards milks for a penalty because he had little chance of stopping Manu) SM. I don’t think TB would agree with me on much but it’s funny how we can disagree whilst agreeing? LOL. If often have different glasses on.