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.The Nickman wrote: ↑July 19, 2022, 5:36 pmGE explained the difference between the two scenarios quite clearly in the very post you quoted.Finchy wrote: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.
I think it’s pretty clear.
2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day
Moderator: GH Moderators
Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day
Ata Mariota’s #1 fan. Bless his cotton socks.
-
- 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
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.
That’s why shepherding the ball over the deadball line is ok, but taking a step in front of a runner isn’t.
Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day
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?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.
Shoving it in your face since 2017
- gangrenous
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16586
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day
That’s legal at present. Again you just can’t move off your line to impede.
Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day
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”.
Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day
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.
-
- 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
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.gergreg wrote: ↑July 19, 2022, 6:11 pmBut 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?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.
It's pretty black and white.
Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day
A ref ‘might’ be unconsciously biased, but my mate knows how to consciously get under my skin.Finchy wrote: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.
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).
- Seiffert82
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 27845
- Joined: March 17, 2007, 12:24 pm
- Favourite Player: Bay56
Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day
Knew it. He's such a grassy knoll - would have blended right in.gergreg wrote: ↑July 19, 2022, 1:51 pmYes, he was on the grassy knoll.Seiffert82 wrote:Does anyone know where Ben Cummins was at the time of the event?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/
Sent from my CPH2021 using Tapatalk
- 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
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
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
Would have won Boogs - 2016, 2017, 2018
1 part green, 1 part machine
1 part green, 1 part machine