Obstruction??

[jmaamary]

Elliot wouldn’t have been in the way if the nights player was on side.

Doesn’t matter, he should have ran through and not stood there

 

[Doglover]

Not sure how a team can benefit when they breached the rules first. If the Newcastle player was onside he wouldn’t have got to a position to be impeded.

 

[KLil]

Agree. We simply don’t have the troops. Won’t take many just some more class

True. FB shouldn't be one of them, Im sold on Meaney after today... Once this kid puts some size on he will start breaking tackles. He probably would have scored a double today if he had a bit more strength.

 

[Boxer]

Doesn’t matter, he should have ran through and not stood there

It does matter the player that was obstructed was a metre offside he might as well been playing on our side.
No try but a penalty?

 

[jmaamary]

It does matter the player that was obstructed was a metre offside he might as well been playing on our side.
No try but a penalty?

I see your point but they don’t use discretion and common sense, they don’t think that far ahead the offside player was obstructed ok no try but penalty

 

[Mr Invisible]

What's the bet this week Analsleeve looks at the video, and brings up our case and mentions "Officials got that one wrong" for both the knock on and the obstruction.

Take away a Knights try, and give us one and it's 16 all.

 

[gazza]

I was go smacked watching it and I still am. A player in an offside position is not permitted to be involved in the play and cannot infringe within 10 metres of the player in possession. So how could he be impeded. The whole problem with nrl is that they just make up rules.

 

[Nexus]

Doesn’t matter, he should have ran through and not stood there

Ffs, he wasn’t running at all. He was in our attacking line, he has every right to stand there.

 

[jmaamary]

Ffs, he wasn’t running at all. He was in our attacking line, he has every right to stand there.

No he doesn’t, he can’t be seen to impede any defenders even by standing still

 

[LoneWolf]

I think everyone is missing the point, they have been consistent in turning down tries for an player just standing in the line, Elliott should have known and not been there

Where is he supposed to go ?

The fault is not with the player but the rule ..

Elliott was not active in the play in that he did not run a decoy therefore obstruction cannot be ruled

The rule states that a player must not stand in the defensive line but the the defensive line came up into the attacking line , illegally I might add and there shouldn’t never have been obstruction ruling especially on a player that was illegally in the defensive line

 

[LoneWolf]

I think the decision is consistent with other calls similar in other games. A player can't hang in the defensive line, he should push straight through and not stop

He wasn’t in the defensive line , that’s the point

The defence pushed up into the attacking line , Elliott did not run a decoy and stood his ground

Anyway you look at it , it’s a try

 

[jmaamary]

Sorry it’s not a try .... these days you cannot stand still with the oncoming defensive line because you will obstruct a defender. If the defender makes the decision to go in on Elliott it is a try but because Elliott made no effort to move out of his way, he is therefore obstructing the defender... I don’t agree with it but they are the rules

 

[gee333]

How is this incorrect by the rules? I genuinely want to know..
I thought you can't stop in the defensive line, what's the rule??

you can stop in the defemsive line or anywhere for that matter, so long as it doesnt impede a defending player... what i think people are saying here is that the player who was impeded was off side so hence he should not have been there to be impeded (he would have been a metre backward... the play would have been at least a meter further along and as such elliot would not be in the line... its a common sense argument, but i am not sure what the actual rules would say

 

[coach]

Sorry it’s not a try .... these days you cannot stand still with the oncoming defensive line because you will obstruct a defender. If the defender makes the decision to go in on Elliott it is a try but because Elliott made no effort to move out of his way, he is therefore obstructing the defender... I don’t agree with it but they are the rules

If old mate tackles Foran and prevents a try it’s a panalty try from being offside.......
So tell me again how it wasn’t a try, he was offside was not allowed to be involved in the play anyway
So again tell me how Elliot being in the way is no try?

 

[Hacky McAxe]

It's a problem with the NRL. Simple rules are straight forward. Anything beyond that comes down to the referee's "interpretation", aka bias.

 

[jmaamary]

If old mate tackles Foran and prevents a try it’s a panalty try from being offside.......
So tell me again how it wasn’t a try, he was offside was not allowed to be involved in the play anyway
So again tell me how Elliot being in the way is no try?

They should have played advantage... there’s that discretion and common sense thing I was talking about. Their decision making process doesn’t work like that, they see the obstruction so they can’t give a try but give us the penalty because the obstructed player was offside. The fact that none of the dogs players were blowing up shows you that they knew it was no try

 

[coach]

They should have played advantage... there’s that discretion and common sense thing I was talking about. Their decision making process doesn’t work like that, they see the obstruction so they can’t give a try but give us the penalty because the obstructed player was offside. The fact that none of the dogs players were blowing up shows you that they knew it was no try

They never blow up...
Jackson never questions the ref
That’s a stupid comment, because no one blew up at the ref risk8ng big fines it was a correct call.... lolololol

 

[dogluva]

They should have played advantage... there’s that discretion and common sense thing I was talking about. Their decision making process doesn’t work like that, they see the obstruction so they can’t give a try but give us the penalty because the obstructed player was offside. The fact that none of the dogs players were blowing up shows you that they knew it was no try

Remember the Parra game where Perenara didn't play the advantage and we had scored...gave us a penalty instead

 

[jmaamary]

They never blow up...
Jackson never questions the ref
That’s a stupid comment, because no one blew up at the ref risk8ng big fines it was a correct call.... lolololol

If that’s all you took out of my comment, you’re calling it stupid? Take your bulldogs goggles off it’s been consistent with what they have ruled with recently. I’m not saying I agree with it but that is the current status quo

 

[coach]

If that’s all you took out of my comment, you’re calling it stupid? Take your bulldogs goggles off it’s been consistent with what they have ruled with recently. I’m not saying I agree with it but that is the current status quo

Been consistent with players onside..... yes obstruction if he was onside
Fact was He was offside, so is not allowed to impede in the play
Both are facts
So how can an offside player who isn’t allowed to impede play be impeded by an obstruction when in fact he wasn’t allowed to make the tackle anyway
All facts champ