I feel your pain Rob, but the rule will become much harder to police and be more contentious in application if you allow players in front of the ball to stand in the line. This is at least a black and white interpretation.
Yes Adam but the defensive line is a moving line and Benji was at no point in that line moving forward with the defensive line and Wighton didn’t run behind his team mate. He moved side ways to position the Raiders player between himself and Wighton. Defensive decisions to initiate contact with an attacking player is not deemed obstruction. If Benji was truly in the defensive line he would have moved forward and the decoy would have been past the defensive line. Benji had ample opportunity to avoid the passive player. It really comes down to who did what to initiate the obstruction IMO. Well played Benji you used the decoy as an obstruction. If everyone knows what Benji was deliberately doing is that the intention of the rule? Why is the defensive decision clause in the obstruction rule?
Yeah but the defender shouldn't have to decide whether to go left or right of the defender standing like a bozo in the line. All he had to do was keep moving towards his own try line out of the way, just lazy play
I’ll go against the grain and say Marshall was not obstructed as much as he chose to be obstructed. There’s a difference. Gamesmanship certainly is part of the game but If a ref can call a player out for milking and or say a defender made a defensive decision to go to a player that didn’t have the football play on why would you encourage this type of gamesmanship? What happened with Kikau against the Storm was far worse an obstruction but they chose allow the play to unfold because Kikau played a key part in the obstruction. Now we have a player (defender) deliberately looking to create an obstruction being rewarded and it wasn’t the attacker. RL supporters don’t like watching soccer for a reason, best it isn’t something we encourage IMO. The second obstruction was correct as he ran behind a team mate. I expect Teddy will be pulled up a lot more if this is the standard as he often uses teammates standing in front of him to gain an advantage.
The obstruction rule is clear. However Ricky like everybody else is aware that even if Old Benji wasn’t”obstructed”, Wighton would have run over him & scored. Benji hiding behind a player is similar to Bozo Fulton putting a kick through, deliberately running into an opponent, play dead as if about to be administered the last rites, receive a penalty, get up slowly, dust himself off then kick the goal. Within the rules however so was underarm bowling at the time. Within the spirit of the game? Doubtful.
I agree. RS is RS. Sure he goes through the motions but getting angry and making a fuss will only intimidate players for so long. He lacks certain skills that a successful coach has. No charisma or class
Like Maguire Ricky is another over rated coach.Maybe if he coached his forwards to run through the line like other good coaches do, the Raiders wouldn't be in that position.The fact that they were up against a tired 12 man defence for the last 7 minutes ,but still not get the job done, shows up Ricky's failings.
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.
Sylvester
Guest
I feel your pain Rob, but the rule will become much harder to police and be more contentious in application if you allow players in front of the ball to stand in the line. This is at least a black and white interpretation.
Rob
Guest
Yes Adam but the defensive line is a moving line and Benji was at no point in that line moving forward with the defensive line and Wighton didn’t run behind his team mate. He moved side ways to position the Raiders player between himself and Wighton. Defensive decisions to initiate contact with an attacking player is not deemed obstruction. If Benji was truly in the defensive line he would have moved forward and the decoy would have been past the defensive line. Benji had ample opportunity to avoid the passive player. It really comes down to who did what to initiate the obstruction IMO. Well played Benji you used the decoy as an obstruction. If everyone knows what Benji was deliberately doing is that the intention of the rule? Why is the defensive decision clause in the obstruction rule?
Adam
Roar Guru
Yeah but the defender shouldn't have to decide whether to go left or right of the defender standing like a bozo in the line. All he had to do was keep moving towards his own try line out of the way, just lazy play
Rob
Guest
I’ll go against the grain and say Marshall was not obstructed as much as he chose to be obstructed. There’s a difference. Gamesmanship certainly is part of the game but If a ref can call a player out for milking and or say a defender made a defensive decision to go to a player that didn’t have the football play on why would you encourage this type of gamesmanship? What happened with Kikau against the Storm was far worse an obstruction but they chose allow the play to unfold because Kikau played a key part in the obstruction. Now we have a player (defender) deliberately looking to create an obstruction being rewarded and it wasn’t the attacker. RL supporters don’t like watching soccer for a reason, best it isn’t something we encourage IMO. The second obstruction was correct as he ran behind a team mate. I expect Teddy will be pulled up a lot more if this is the standard as he often uses teammates standing in front of him to gain an advantage.
JOHN ALLAN
Guest
The obstruction rule is clear. However Ricky like everybody else is aware that even if Old Benji wasn’t”obstructed”, Wighton would have run over him & scored. Benji hiding behind a player is similar to Bozo Fulton putting a kick through, deliberately running into an opponent, play dead as if about to be administered the last rites, receive a penalty, get up slowly, dust himself off then kick the goal. Within the rules however so was underarm bowling at the time. Within the spirit of the game? Doubtful.
Crow
Roar Pro
Yes the obstruction rule is clear. It’s a shallow argument from a failing coach.
Crow
Roar Pro
I agree. RS is RS. Sure he goes through the motions but getting angry and making a fuss will only intimidate players for so long. He lacks certain skills that a successful coach has. No charisma or class
farkurnell
Roar Rookie
Like Maguire Ricky is another over rated coach.Maybe if he coached his forwards to run through the line like other good coaches do, the Raiders wouldn't be in that position.The fact that they were up against a tired 12 man defence for the last 7 minutes ,but still not get the job done, shows up Ricky's failings.
Big Mig
Roar Rookie
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.