2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day

All the news on the Canberra Raiders NRL team, all in one place

Moderator: GH Moderators

Who will win?

Raiders 13+
0
No votes
Raiders 1-12
4
36%
Draw
0
No votes
Storm 1-12
1
9%
Storm 13+
6
55%
 
Total votes: 11

User avatar
Finchy
Jason Croker
Posts: 4889
Joined: March 30, 2008, 9:59 pm
Favourite Player: Ata Mariota

Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day

Post by Finchy »

The Nickman wrote: July 19, 2022, 5:36 pm
Finchy wrote:
greeneyed wrote: July 19, 2022, 12:10 am It is the same rule isn’t it? You can stand your ground, go for the ball and/or choose not to touch it when you do. You don’t have to get out of the way of another player, so long as your not changing a line to just to obstruct another player.
Scenario A: Savage is defending near his goal posts in the in goal area. Olam is 20m out and puts in a grubber kick from out wide into the in goal. Both players are running towards the ball at a 90 degree angle from each other. Savage runs in front of Olam with no intention of going for the ball, stands between Olam and the ball with his arms outstretched like a big shield, and waits for the ball to roll dead, obstructing Olam from being able take possession of it. Olam crashes into the back of Savage, but the ball beats him dead. Play on, 7 tackle set to Canberra.

Scenario B: Same situation as above. Except this time Papalli is standing 10 metres outside the in goal area. He sees Olam kick it. Papalli steps sideways with his arms out like a big shield with no intention of going for the ball after he sees it go past him into the in goal. Olam collides with Papalli and falls over. Papalli gets penalised for obstructing Olam’s run. Penalty Storm.

In both scenarios both Raiders defenders obstruct Olam from getting to the ball. Neither player has any intention of taking possession of the ball. One is play on, the other is an obstruction, depending on where it occurs on the field. And yet the intention of both players is the same. Obstruct the run to prevent him getting possession.

I guess in Scenario A the argument could be made that Savage looked like he was going for the ball, but then decided to shield it, even if he had no intention of taking possession of it at all.

In Scenario B Papalli never looks like he’s going for the ball, so it’s a penalty. I guess it’s all about what you look like you’re doing rather than what you’re actually doing.
GE explained the difference between the two scenarios quite clearly in the very post you quoted.

I think it’s pretty clear.
I don’t think it’s clear. In my scenario Savage isn’t “standing his ground”, he’s changing his line to run over and put himself between Olam and the ball to prevent (obstruct) him from getting it. But if you think that’s clear, great. I disagree.
Ata Mariota’s #1 fan. Bless his cotton socks.
The Nickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 51011
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day

Post by The Nickman »

You’re allowed to run towards the ball, as soon as you change your line it’s an obstruction.

That’s why shepherding the ball over the deadball line is ok, but taking a step in front of a runner isn’t.
User avatar
gerg
Laurie Daley
Posts: 12612
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day

Post by gerg »

The Nickman wrote:You’re allowed to run towards the ball, as soon as you change your line it’s an obstruction.

That’s why shepherding the ball over the deadball line is ok, but taking a step in front of a runner isn’t.
But you see the referees penalising players for running back to ... say a mid field bomb with their only intent being to provide a shield for the fullback. There was a big crackdown on it a few years ago. How is what they are doing any different to a fullback shepherding the ball - they are running back towards the ball and then choosing not to touch it?
Shoving it in your face since 2017
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day

Post by gangrenous »

That’s legal at present. Again you just can’t move off your line to impede.
User avatar
BJ
Steve Walters
Posts: 7687
Joined: February 2, 2007, 12:14 pm

Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day

Post by BJ »

My Dragons supporting mate really knows how to rub it in. He texted me last night with “so the ref missed 3 clear penalties and 3 sin bins in the final seconds against us, but can somehow find the Storm a final second penalty out of absolutely nothing”.
User avatar
Finchy
Jason Croker
Posts: 4889
Joined: March 30, 2008, 9:59 pm
Favourite Player: Ata Mariota

Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day

Post by Finchy »

BJ wrote: July 20, 2022, 8:08 am My Dragons supporting mate really knows how to rub it in. He texted me last night with “so the ref missed 3 clear penalties and 3 sin bins in the final seconds against us, but can somehow find the Storm a final second penalty out of absolutely nothing”.
And people wonder why so many Raiders fans think the refs/NRL hate us or are biased against us. There’s an ever-growing long list of examples.
Ata Mariota’s #1 fan. Bless his cotton socks.
The Nickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 51011
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day

Post by The Nickman »

gergreg wrote: July 19, 2022, 6:11 pm
The Nickman wrote:You’re allowed to run towards the ball, as soon as you change your line it’s an obstruction.

That’s why shepherding the ball over the deadball line is ok, but taking a step in front of a runner isn’t.
But you see the referees penalising players for running back to ... say a mid field bomb with their only intent being to provide a shield for the fullback. There was a big crackdown on it a few years ago. How is what they are doing any different to a fullback shepherding the ball - they are running back towards the ball and then choosing not to touch it?
You're allowed to run towards a bomb, you just can't change your line to do it. As soon as you change your line you're deemed to be escorting.

It's pretty black and white.
User avatar
BJ
Steve Walters
Posts: 7687
Joined: February 2, 2007, 12:14 pm

Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day

Post by BJ »

Finchy wrote:
BJ wrote: July 20, 2022, 8:08 am My Dragons supporting mate really knows how to rub it in. He texted me last night with “so the ref missed 3 clear penalties and 3 sin bins in the final seconds against us, but can somehow find the Storm a final second penalty out of absolutely nothing”.
And people wonder why so many Raiders fans think the refs/NRL hate us or are biased against us. There’s an ever-growing long list of examples.
A ref ‘might’ be unconsciously biased, but my mate knows how to consciously get under my skin.

The Grand Final 6 again, featured in a “greatest moments of NRL era grand finals” item he sent me (I didn’t realise until later that he’d fake dropped that event in at number 3).
User avatar
Seiffert82
Mal Meninga
Posts: 27845
Joined: March 17, 2007, 12:24 pm
Favourite Player: Bay56

Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day

Post by Seiffert82 »

gergreg wrote: July 19, 2022, 1:51 pm
Seiffert82 wrote:
Finchy wrote:From Fox League:

Phantom whistle stings the Raiders

"A fan in Melbourne had a whistle in the crowd Sunday night mimicking the Ref. How should the NRL handle this situation?"

https://fb.watch/elOZe2M3_m/
Does anyone know where Ben Cummins was at the time of the event?

Sent from my CPH2021 using Tapatalk
Yes, he was on the grassy knoll.
Knew it. He's such a grassy knoll - would have blended right in.
User avatar
Sid
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9937
Joined: May 15, 2015, 8:47 pm
Favourite Player: Shannon Boyd
Location: Darwin, N.T.

Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day

Post by Sid »

If it wasn't Cummins I'd like to nominate Brandy as another suspect. He never has anything good to say about the Raiders the One Eyed EDIT

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk


Would have won Boogs - 2016, 2017, 2018

1 part green, 1 part machine
Post Reply