The Souths five-eighth remains adamant he was denied the opportunity to tackle Jack Wighton – but former England international James Graham isn’t convinced.
Did the right thing. Was slightly obstructed but if he attempts to make a tackle and misses because he was 'slightly obstructed' by the man standing in the defensive line than maybe play goes on and they concede a try which isn't fair either. If you're going to stand in the defensive line than expect the defense to milk it for all they're worth. Easy answer is get your plays right or run through the defensive line and don't obstruct anyone...simples!
All you Benji apologists must like diving (as is the soccer variety) as well and think its fair and within the rules because that is were your arguments eventually lead.
I fail to see how Benji can ‘attempt” to “make” a tackle when a 100kg + forward is obstructing him. You’ve got it the wrong way around, he couldn’t make the tackle due to the obstruction, so played the penalty (which is correct). IT was an obstruction everyday of the week, and that is a penalty under the NRL rules, everyday of the week.
I don't really see what was ugly about it? Commentators always bang on about how a defender was no chance of stopping an attacker but Marshall is exactly right, the point is that he was denied an opportunity to put in a full effort at tackling Wighton. It wasn't the biggest obstruction in the world but Guler's presence made Marshall's job harder than it would have been otherwise, and Guler was in the defensive line and not in a position to be a support player. Clear obstruction regardless of whether Marshall played it up a little or not.
There is no way that Benji could make a decisive and an affective tackle with a player in front of him and a player sidestepping while he was obstructed, if you watch the clip, Benji went left where and if Whitehead would have gone it wouldn't be an obstruction but then Whitehead went to Benji's right that is where "the obstruction rule came into play"! As Benji said, its irrespective if I would have made any tackle(s) both ways or not. This is just another nonsensical whinge that gets bandied around in the NRL's usual circles. Both so called none tries that the Raiders are claiming were pure obstructions and that is why :thumbdown: they were ruled as "No Tries" get over it, as it has nothing to do with sportsmanship those are the rules!
I'm sure Benji is going to lose sleep over the fact that Edward Kelly's view of him has been diminished. Raiders have no one but themselves to blame. Their poor execution is what caused the penalty. Same as the disallowed try that happened a few minutes after this one.
There is gamesmanship and there is ugly gamesmanship. Benji was on the side of ugly, and he can be smug about it, but my view of him has been diminished.
Benji is right, the only comical aspect of this is the jokers sitting next to him in the panel. The obstruction rule was applied correctly and consistently in this case. Two back to back obstructions in 3 minutes by the Raiders was more of a reflection of the raiders ‘chunkiness’ in their attack due to several players playing out of their normal positions that night and nothing else. Their patterns were wrong. The referee’s and bunker’s interpretation of the rules was spot on. Must be a slow week in news for this to come up again a week later, jump on the Ricky Stuart band wagon. Maybe they should have had Tapine's wife to comment on this, she seems more apt than some of the jokers on the panel.
Joe
Roar Rookie
Did the right thing. Was slightly obstructed but if he attempts to make a tackle and misses because he was 'slightly obstructed' by the man standing in the defensive line than maybe play goes on and they concede a try which isn't fair either. If you're going to stand in the defensive line than expect the defense to milk it for all they're worth. Easy answer is get your plays right or run through the defensive line and don't obstruct anyone...simples!
Edward Kelly
Roar Guru
All you Benji apologists must like diving (as is the soccer variety) as well and think its fair and within the rules because that is were your arguments eventually lead.
Big Mig
Roar Rookie
I fail to see how Benji can ‘attempt” to “make” a tackle when a 100kg + forward is obstructing him. You’ve got it the wrong way around, he couldn’t make the tackle due to the obstruction, so played the penalty (which is correct). IT was an obstruction everyday of the week, and that is a penalty under the NRL rules, everyday of the week.
Duncan Smith
Roar Guru
Benji played for the penalty instead of attempting the tackle. Seems quite clear.
steveng
Roar Rookie
Sorry that should be Wighton my mistake
Harry
Guest
I don't really see what was ugly about it? Commentators always bang on about how a defender was no chance of stopping an attacker but Marshall is exactly right, the point is that he was denied an opportunity to put in a full effort at tackling Wighton. It wasn't the biggest obstruction in the world but Guler's presence made Marshall's job harder than it would have been otherwise, and Guler was in the defensive line and not in a position to be a support player. Clear obstruction regardless of whether Marshall played it up a little or not.
steveng
Roar Rookie
There is no way that Benji could make a decisive and an affective tackle with a player in front of him and a player sidestepping while he was obstructed, if you watch the clip, Benji went left where and if Whitehead would have gone it wouldn't be an obstruction but then Whitehead went to Benji's right that is where "the obstruction rule came into play"! As Benji said, its irrespective if I would have made any tackle(s) both ways or not. This is just another nonsensical whinge that gets bandied around in the NRL's usual circles. Both so called none tries that the Raiders are claiming were pure obstructions and that is why :thumbdown: they were ruled as "No Tries" get over it, as it has nothing to do with sportsmanship those are the rules!
Rob
Guest
I'm sure Benji is going to lose sleep over the fact that Edward Kelly's view of him has been diminished. Raiders have no one but themselves to blame. Their poor execution is what caused the penalty. Same as the disallowed try that happened a few minutes after this one.
Edward Kelly
Roar Guru
There is gamesmanship and there is ugly gamesmanship. Benji was on the side of ugly, and he can be smug about it, but my view of him has been diminished.
Big Mig
Roar Rookie
Benji is right, the only comical aspect of this is the jokers sitting next to him in the panel. The obstruction rule was applied correctly and consistently in this case. Two back to back obstructions in 3 minutes by the Raiders was more of a reflection of the raiders ‘chunkiness’ in their attack due to several players playing out of their normal positions that night and nothing else. Their patterns were wrong. The referee’s and bunker’s interpretation of the rules was spot on. Must be a slow week in news for this to come up again a week later, jump on the Ricky Stuart band wagon. Maybe they should have had Tapine's wife to comment on this, she seems more apt than some of the jokers on the panel.