Jump to content


Rugby League World - Grand Finals Issue

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD - THE GRAND FINALS ISSUE - OUT 17 OCT OR DOWNLOAD IT NOW!
Try our Fantastic 4-Issue Bundle Offer:
For just £14, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:

The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final drama from both hemispheres plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Obstruction/Blocking


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 StevieM13

StevieM13
  • Coach
  • 182 posts

Posted 19 September 2010 - 11:36 PM

There's been instances of players not in possession running into or through the defensive line. Tries have been chalked off and penalties given against the side in possession.

Noticed in the Friday game that Chris Tuson of Wigan deliberately stood in an offside position facing the defensive line just a yard or two to the right of a Wigan play the ball. Wigan were within a couple of yeards of the Rovers line, not far in from the left hand touchline at the away end. Hull KR had players around the ruck ready to try and prevent the acting half back going on his own. Tuson was obviously standing in that position to attempt to affect the defensive line, and as the ball has played he moved towards the defenders.

I don't know if anyone else picked up on it, the referee certainly didn't even though he had an unobstructed view from 10 feet away, but that play the ball led to a Wigan try and surely it should have been chalked off for delibearte offside/interference?

#2 Allan Marsden

Allan Marsden
  • Banned
  • 433 posts

Posted 20 September 2010 - 12:26 AM

QUOTE (StevieM13 @ Sep 20 2010, 12:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
There's been instances of players not in possession running into or through the defensive line. Tries have been chalked off and penalties given against the side in possession.

Noticed in the Friday game that Chris Tuson of Wigan deliberately stood in an offside position facing the defensive line just a yard or two to the right of a Wigan play the ball. Wigan were within a couple of yeards of the Rovers line, not far in from the left hand touchline at the away end. Hull KR had players around the ruck ready to try and prevent the acting half back going on his own. Tuson was obviously standing in that position to attempt to affect the defensive line, and as the ball has played he moved towards the defenders.

I don't know if anyone else picked up on it, the referee certainly didn't even though he had an unobstructed view from 10 feet away, but that play the ball led to a Wigan try and surely it should have been chalked off for delibearte offside/interference?


Straws Clutching At - REARRANGE



#3 The 4 of Us

The 4 of Us
  • Coach
  • 1,689 posts

Posted 20 September 2010 - 07:31 AM

QUOTE (StevieM13 @ Sep 20 2010, 12:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
There's been instances of players not in possession running into or through the defensive line. Tries have been chalked off and penalties given against the side in possession.

Noticed in the Friday game that Chris Tuson of Wigan deliberately stood in an offside position facing the defensive line just a yard or two to the right of a Wigan play the ball. Wigan were within a couple of yeards of the Rovers line, not far in from the left hand touchline at the away end. Hull KR had players around the ruck ready to try and prevent the acting half back going on his own. Tuson was obviously standing in that position to attempt to affect the defensive line, and as the ball has played he moved towards the defenders.

I don't know if anyone else picked up on it, the referee certainly didn't even though he had an unobstructed view from 10 feet away, but that play the ball led to a Wigan try and surely it should have been chalked off for delibearte offside/interference?


Perfectly legal.

Section 11 10-g of rules. Team in posession , players need only be behind the players involved at the play the ball. If you notice the player does not move. He is essentially a dummy run. ST Helens do this a lot with Hardman and more often than not he scores from that position.

#4 terrywebbisgod

terrywebbisgod
  • Coach
  • 8,415 posts

Posted 20 September 2010 - 07:33 AM

QUOTE (The 4 of Us @ Sep 20 2010, 08:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Perfectly legal.

Section 11 10-g of rules. Team in posession , players need only be behind the players involved at the play the ball. If you notice the player does not move. He is essentially a dummy run. ST Helens do this a lot with Hardman and more often than not he scores from that position.

How long is it since he played for Saints?
Cannibal chiefs chew Camembert cheese,cos chewing keeps them cheeky.

#5 dallymessenger

dallymessenger
  • Coach
  • 20,928 posts

Posted 20 September 2010 - 07:35 AM

a big issue in the modern game given so many plays involve the use of decoy runners

the very simple rule in the nrl is if a decoy runner goes into space and then the following play goes into that same hole created by the decoy it will be an obstruction. in addition to instances of the decoy obstructing the tackler as well

in some instances perfectly valid tries have been disallowed just because a decoy ran into an opposition tackler even though there was no obstruction.

indeed many defenders run into decoys to milk an obstruction penalty

#6 StevieM13

StevieM13
  • Coach
  • 182 posts

Posted 20 September 2010 - 08:32 AM

QUOTE (Allan Marsden @ Sep 20 2010, 01:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Straws Clutching At - REARRANGE


No matter how many times I have rearranged those three words it still makes a nonsensical reply from you. I thought it was a very interesting tactic that does not appear to have been picked up on. In the wakefield vs Hull FC game a couple of months ago, Kirk Yeaman was called offside at the play the ball when he was getting back into the line from the previous play. He was in roughly the same position as Tuson relative to the play the ball but not deliberately so. He scored but the try was chalked off.

I would be interested to know, from any match officials on here, why Tuson was not penalised for deliberate offside and trying to distract defenders by mving towards them when the ball was played.

#7 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,909 posts

Posted 20 September 2010 - 09:42 AM

QUOTE (The 4 of Us @ Sep 20 2010, 08:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Perfectly legal.

Section 11 10-g of rules. Team in posession , players need only be behind the players involved at the play the ball. If you notice the player does not move. He is essentially a dummy run. ST Helens do this a lot with Hardman and more often than not he scores from that position.


Which is it then, as your post is clearly contradicting itself? If he moves towards the defending team as we often see, then I agree that this is a deliberate attempt to obstruct the defence. If her stands still then clearly not. I'm for ever getting frustrated by players stepping across the defence without a hope of receiving a pass, and also players deliberately taking out defenders such as we saw yesterday between Warington and Huddersfield that caused an all in brawl.

#8 The 4 of Us

The 4 of Us
  • Coach
  • 1,689 posts

Posted 20 September 2010 - 12:22 PM

QUOTE (Ackroman @ Sep 20 2010, 10:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Which is it then, as your post is clearly contradicting itself? If he moves towards the defending team as we often see, then I agree that this is a deliberate attempt to obstruct the defence. If her stands still then clearly not. I'm for ever getting frustrated by players stepping across the defence without a hope of receiving a pass, and also players deliberately taking out defenders such as we saw yesterday between Warington and Huddersfield that caused an all in brawl.


Sorry Terry, Graham. No idea why I said Hardman!

Ackro' No contradictions. He does not move. If he did and took someone out, without having ball, he would be obstructing and penalised.

Note the word "essentially". By being where he is, he causes confusion and concern in the defence. Nothing wrong with that, perhaps people prefer 5 drives and a kick?

He is an "option". He may be in the way,people may not like the "tactic" but lets not get personal opinions or preferences get in the way, because according to the laws of the game, until they are changed to get the attacking team back a certain distance like the defence, he is doing nothing wrong. He simply needs to be behind the acting half back.

Edited by The 4 of Us, 20 September 2010 - 12:23 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users