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
Azza
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10526
Joined: February 16, 2005, 10:12 am

Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day

Post by Azza »

Hey botman wait up, I wanna stink too!

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

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 »

BJ wrote:Cmon Raiders players, pick up your act.

You play to the whistle when Touchie puts his flag up and let the Sharks score and then you again play to the fake whistle when the Storm score.

How about you make your tackles and worry about the officials later.
Or when the ref waves his clenched fist in the air to, I don't know, guide in light aircraft during a grand final.

Sent from my CPH2021 using Tapatalk

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 »

greeneyed wrote:
BJ wrote: July 18, 2022, 11:22 am I’m shocked Rapa has been hit with a grade 2 head high (2-3 weeks). I didn’t think it was any worse than the head highs you see week in and week out for minimal charges.

Time we fought one of these judiciary charges.
I'm shocked too. The shoulder charge... I just went back to look at it. The contact was minimal and involved absolutely no dangerous contact, no penalty even awarded on the field. He's developing a technique problem, but a charge and a $3,000 fine seems well over the top.
They should absolutely contest the charge.

Sent from my CPH2021 using Tapatalk

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 »

hrundi89 wrote:
Raiders_Pat wrote: July 17, 2022, 6:23 pm How can a player impede if he hasn't moved his feet? Very bizarre that people would defend Klein on that call.
I agree. 100% the spirit of the rule should be based on a player moving position to get in the way. If the attacker runs at a stationary player who isn't offside and gets impeded then tough.

The dives from Hughes were outright embarrassing. Supposed toughest sport in the world and Papa lightly grabs his sleeve. Goes down like he's been shot. Cringeworthy stuff. Don't ever complain about soccer.
Yep, the way he went down after having the ball knocked out of his hands was appalling. Matt Lodge stuff.

It really is getting ridiculous.

Sent from my CPH2021 using Tapatalk

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 »

The biggest tragedy of the game was in the 8th minute of the second half.

Hudson Young throws the best second rowers pass for what should have been a fabulous try to Rapana, only for the grounding to be messed up.

He really is becoming an elite second rower, running elite second rowers lines and throwing great second rowers passes.

Haha!


User avatar
BadnMean
Steve Walters
Posts: 7594
Joined: May 13, 2013, 5:30 pm
Favourite Player: chicka

Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day

Post by BadnMean »

Azza wrote: July 18, 2022, 12:56 pm
Northern Raider wrote:So who's enjoying the latest installment of "Botman vs the World"?
It's pretty boring. Preferred the top gun sequel.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk
I'm alone in the world in thinking the top gun sequel was pretty good, but not amazing...
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 »

BadnMean wrote:
Azza wrote: July 18, 2022, 12:56 pm
Northern Raider wrote:So who's enjoying the latest installment of "Botman vs the World"?
It's pretty boring. Preferred the top gun sequel.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk
I'm alone in the world in thinking the top gun sequel was pretty good, but not amazing...
Definitely NOT alone. There’s you, Kelly McGillis and Meg Ryan.

But I think that’s about it.
User avatar
dubby
Don Furner
Posts: 33813
Joined: May 16, 2006, 12:14 pm
Favourite Player: Mal Meninga
Location: Albury

Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day

Post by dubby »

The GH Twitter page made the Fox Sports news.
https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl-pr ... 8a1867eced
The spiral of silence refers to the idea that when people fail to speak, the price of speaking rises. As the price to speak rises, still fewer speak out, which further causes the price to rise, so that fewer people yet will speak out, until a whole culture or nation is silenced. This is what happened in Germany.

If you do not speak, you are not being neutral, but are contributing to the success of the thing you refuse to name and condemn.
raiderskater
Jason Croker
Posts: 4908
Joined: July 26, 2015, 8:24 pm
Favourite Player: Croker, Cotric, Sezer
Location: The Land of Lime Green

Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day

Post by raiderskater »

radicalraider wrote: July 18, 2022, 8:06 am Wighton captain instead of tapine.. more proof taps wont be re-signing
I mean, no - Jack was made captain earlier in the year when Whitehead had to miss games earlier as well. Better to continue a previous situation rather than make a new one.

On the whistle, I also heard it and it was clear the players did. The NRL will need to do something about that because it very much sounded like Klein's whistle.
And to all the people who doubted me, hello to them as well. - Mark Webber, Raiders Ballboy and Unluckiest F1 Driver Ever

I'm attacking in the right way, instead of just...attacking in the general direction. - Max Aaron (also eerily apropos for the Green Machine)
cat
Laurie Daley
Posts: 12444
Joined: April 1, 2008, 5:19 pm
Favourite Player: Dane Tilse
Location: Sydney

Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day

Post by cat »

Seiffert82 wrote: July 18, 2022, 4:15 pm
greeneyed wrote:
BJ wrote: July 18, 2022, 11:22 am I’m shocked Rapa has been hit with a grade 2 head high (2-3 weeks). I didn’t think it was any worse than the head highs you see week in and week out for minimal charges.

Time we fought one of these judiciary charges.
I'm shocked too. The shoulder charge... I just went back to look at it. The contact was minimal and involved absolutely no dangerous contact, no penalty even awarded on the field. He's developing a technique problem, but a charge and a $3,000 fine seems well over the top.
They should absolutely contest the charge.

Sent from my CPH2021 using Tapatalk
Interesting facts from nrl.com

We do seem to get a higher number of players suspended then other clubs

Broncos have had 9 players charged only 3 suspended ( the rest were fined)

Raiders had 5 charged with 3 suspended

Dogs 10 charged with only 1 suspended

Sharks 10 charged 6 suspended

Titans 4 charged 1 suspended

Manly 7 charged 3 suspended

Storm 8 charged 4 suspended

Knights 5 charged 2 suspended

Cowboys 8 charged no one suspended

Eels 3 charged 1 suspended

Panthers 3 charged no one suspended

Dragons 9 charged 3 suspended

Rabbits 5 charged 1 suspended
Roosters 5 charged 3 suspended

Warriors 7 charged 4 suspended

Tigers 7 charged 3 suspended

Obviously this isn't actually looking at the incidents but certain clubs seem to be touched with a feather ( cough panthers cough) and a couple seem to be hit with a sledgehammer
Vaccinated
User avatar
BadnMean
Steve Walters
Posts: 7594
Joined: May 13, 2013, 5:30 pm
Favourite Player: chicka

Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day

Post by BadnMean »

BJ wrote: July 18, 2022, 5:50 pm
BadnMean wrote:
Azza wrote: July 18, 2022, 12:56 pm
Northern Raider wrote:So who's enjoying the latest installment of "Botman vs the World"?
It's pretty boring. Preferred the top gun sequel.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk
I'm alone in the world in thinking the top gun sequel was pretty good, but not amazing...
Definitely NOT alone. There’s you, Kelly McGillis and Meg Ryan.

But I think that’s about it.
Well I imagined THAT room often enough...
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145095
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day

Post by greeneyed »

Image
RedRaider
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11265
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day

Post by RedRaider »

gergreg wrote: July 18, 2022, 1:11 pm Just on Papalii and that incident. Why is a player able to shepherd a ball into touch or over the dead ball line by obstructing a player but you can't do it in any other circumstance?
I can see the day when a chaser will dive to the side of the defender and get a hand on the ball for a try. To me it's all about an instinctive player having a crack at something rarely seen. There is little to lose for the chaser as he is usually chasing one of his team mates kicks which if it goes dead in goal, is a 7 tackle restart for the defending team.

On the Papa penalty. A defender is entitled to hold his ground. As long as there is no deliberate movement into the path of a chaser then it should be play on if the chaser runs into the defender. The video ref saw it that way. Plenty of others believe Papa moved into the path of the chaser. I'm on the side of those who reckon there is no consistency interpreting rules these days. The six again calls being the most obvious.
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 »

BJ wrote:
BadnMean wrote:
Azza wrote: July 18, 2022, 12:56 pm
Northern Raider wrote:So who's enjoying the latest installment of "Botman vs the World"?
It's pretty boring. Preferred the top gun sequel.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk
I'm alone in the world in thinking the top gun sequel was pretty good, but not amazing...
Definitely NOT alone. There’s you, Kelly McGillis and Meg Ryan.

But I think that’s about it.
I haven't seen it and I hate it. Tom Cruise. Can't stand him.
Shoving it in your face since 2017
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 »

RedRaider wrote:
gergreg wrote: July 18, 2022, 1:11 pm Just on Papalii and that incident. Why is a player able to shepherd a ball into touch or over the dead ball line by obstructing a player but you can't do it in any other circumstance?
I can see the day when a chaser will dive to the side of the defender and get a hand on the ball for a try. To me it's all about an instinctive player having a crack at something rarely seen. There is little to lose for the chaser as he is usually chasing one of his team mates kicks which if it goes dead in goal, is a 7 tackle restart for the defending team.

On the Papa penalty. A defender is entitled to hold his ground. As long as there is no deliberate movement into the path of a chaser then it should be play on if the chaser runs into the defender. The video ref saw it that way. Plenty of others believe Papa moved into the path of the chaser. I'm on the side of those who reckon there is no consistency interpreting rules these days. The six again calls being the most obvious.
Agreed. Some of those winger tries where the whole body is over the sideline (in the air) are spectacular and it's only a matter of time to see the same over the deadball line. My comment was more about the different interpretation of the rules. A fullback can completely block a kick chaser and shepherd the ball dead.
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 »

dubby wrote:The GH Twitter page made the Fox Sports news.
https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl-pr ... 8a1867eced
So if the referee judges that a crowd whistle impacts the defence, I assume the correct ruling is to reset the play?
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 »

gergreg wrote:
RedRaider wrote:
gergreg wrote: July 18, 2022, 1:11 pm Just on Papalii and that incident. Why is a player able to shepherd a ball into touch or over the dead ball line by obstructing a player but you can't do it in any other circumstance?
I can see the day when a chaser will dive to the side of the defender and get a hand on the ball for a try. To me it's all about an instinctive player having a crack at something rarely seen. There is little to lose for the chaser as he is usually chasing one of his team mates kicks which if it goes dead in goal, is a 7 tackle restart for the defending team.

On the Papa penalty. A defender is entitled to hold his ground. As long as there is no deliberate movement into the path of a chaser then it should be play on if the chaser runs into the defender. The video ref saw it that way. Plenty of others believe Papa moved into the path of the chaser. I'm on the side of those who reckon there is no consistency interpreting rules these days. The six again calls being the most obvious.
Agreed. Some of those winger tries where the whole body is over the sideline (in the air) are spectacular and it's only a matter of time to see the same over the deadball line. My comment was more about the different interpretation of the rules. A fullback can completely block a kick chaser and shepherd the ball dead.
Difference is you’re allowed to do what you like on route to the ball. You can’t depart from that route to cut off another player getting to it.
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 »

gangrenous wrote:
gergreg wrote:
RedRaider wrote:
gergreg wrote: July 18, 2022, 1:11 pm Just on Papalii and that incident. Why is a player able to shepherd a ball into touch or over the dead ball line by obstructing a player but you can't do it in any other circumstance?
I can see the day when a chaser will dive to the side of the defender and get a hand on the ball for a try. To me it's all about an instinctive player having a crack at something rarely seen. There is little to lose for the chaser as he is usually chasing one of his team mates kicks which if it goes dead in goal, is a 7 tackle restart for the defending team.

On the Papa penalty. A defender is entitled to hold his ground. As long as there is no deliberate movement into the path of a chaser then it should be play on if the chaser runs into the defender. The video ref saw it that way. Plenty of others believe Papa moved into the path of the chaser. I'm on the side of those who reckon there is no consistency interpreting rules these days. The six again calls being the most obvious.
Agreed. Some of those winger tries where the whole body is over the sideline (in the air) are spectacular and it's only a matter of time to see the same over the deadball line. My comment was more about the different interpretation of the rules. A fullback can completely block a kick chaser and shepherd the ball dead.
Difference is you’re allowed to do what you like on route to the ball. You can’t depart from that route to cut off another player getting to it.
But where does the route to the ball begin and end? At what point are you allowed to impede the 'attacker'? A metre from where the ball is, ten metres?
Shoving it in your face since 2017
User avatar
Off
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16409
Joined: May 20, 2007, 5:13 pm

Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day

Post by Off »

Top gun was OK, long awaited sequel but it could never never live up to the original, not enough half naked volley ball scenes for mine, beats watching any tragic Raiders game though.

Sent from my SM-A536E using Tapatalk


This place is woke.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day

Post by gangrenous »

gergreg wrote:
gangrenous wrote:
gergreg wrote:
RedRaider wrote:
gergreg wrote: July 18, 2022, 1:11 pm Just on Papalii and that incident. Why is a player able to shepherd a ball into touch or over the dead ball line by obstructing a player but you can't do it in any other circumstance?
I can see the day when a chaser will dive to the side of the defender and get a hand on the ball for a try. To me it's all about an instinctive player having a crack at something rarely seen. There is little to lose for the chaser as he is usually chasing one of his team mates kicks which if it goes dead in goal, is a 7 tackle restart for the defending team.

On the Papa penalty. A defender is entitled to hold his ground. As long as there is no deliberate movement into the path of a chaser then it should be play on if the chaser runs into the defender. The video ref saw it that way. Plenty of others believe Papa moved into the path of the chaser. I'm on the side of those who reckon there is no consistency interpreting rules these days. The six again calls being the most obvious.
Agreed. Some of those winger tries where the whole body is over the sideline (in the air) are spectacular and it's only a matter of time to see the same over the deadball line. My comment was more about the different interpretation of the rules. A fullback can completely block a kick chaser and shepherd the ball dead.
Difference is you’re allowed to do what you like on route to the ball. You can’t depart from that route to cut off another player getting to it.
But where does the route to the ball begin and end? At what point are you allowed to impede the 'attacker'? A metre from where the ball is, ten metres?
It’s not about distance, it’s about if you’re moving to the ball. If you’re taking the shortest path to the ball you can do that as fast or as slow as you want. You can’t move in a direction that is away from the ball to block someone else’s path to it.
Last edited by gangrenous on July 18, 2022, 8:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
BadnMean
Steve Walters
Posts: 7594
Joined: May 13, 2013, 5:30 pm
Favourite Player: chicka

Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day

Post by BadnMean »

It's really never been that complicated and still isn't. Every spectacular diving scenario or feet planted or line run fast or slow still comes down to...

You don't have to get out of their **** way. But you aren't allowed to go out of your way to get in their **** way either.
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 »

Beautifully put
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 »

BadnMean wrote:It's really never been that complicated and still isn't. Every spectacular diving scenario or feet planted or line run fast or slow still comes down to...

You don't have to get out of their **** way. But you aren't allowed to go out of your way to get in their **** way either.
You see fullbacks deliberately shepherding the ball over the deadball line, deliberately impeding the attacking player just about every single game. I'm being a little obtuse, of course, but it does happen.

Edit. I'm not for a moment suggesting that this is an area that needs fixing because the NRL would sure as **** **** it up but you know, I know, the players know that they deliberately impede the attacker in that scenario but we all pretend it doesn't happen.
Shoving it in your face since 2017
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 »

gergreg wrote: July 18, 2022, 10:49 pm
BadnMean wrote:It's really never been that complicated and still isn't. Every spectacular diving scenario or feet planted or line run fast or slow still comes down to...

You don't have to get out of their **** way. But you aren't allowed to go out of your way to get in their **** way either.
You see fullbacks deliberately shepherding the ball over the deadball line, deliberately impeding the attacking player just about every single game. I'm being a little obtuse, of course, but it does happen.

Edit. I'm not for a moment suggesting that this is an area that needs fixing because the NRL would sure as **** **** it up but you know, I know, the players know that they deliberately impede the attacker in that scenario but we all pretend it doesn't happen.
I get what your saying gerg.

If the ball’s in the in goal you can shepherd it (ie: obstruct other players from being able to get it) without issue.

Do the same thing anywhere outside the in goal area and it’s deemed an obstruction, or running someone off the ball.

I get that you can’t tackle, grab, trip, etc a player going for the ball, but if you want to run in front of them to block their run to impede their ability to get to the ball in time, I don’t really see the difference. Except one is penalised, the other isn’t.

You could make a new rule which forces a player in the in goal that puts himself between the ball and the attacker that he has to play at the ball, otherwise it’s an obstruction. Not sure it’s a rule I want to see, but it’s a rule they could make nonetheless.

If the fullback wants to get in the way he either has to take possession of it and try to get back in the field of play, bat it dead, or ground it himself. He can’t just block opposition players and wait for it to roll dead.
Ata Mariota’s #1 fan. Bless his cotton socks.
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145095
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day

Post by greeneyed »

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.
Image
twistedbydesign
Simon Woolford
Posts: 400
Joined: March 5, 2007, 2:16 pm

Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day

Post by twistedbydesign »

If a couple of Storm passes went to hand we could have been out of the game after 15 minutes, how we managed to be 8-6 ahead was some kind of miracle. And no doubt the loss of Papenhuyzen really changed the game as well.

That being said, I thought we were the better side for most of the match and deserved the win. There were some encouraging signs with the ball - a willingness to shift early and at least a little more structure when attacking their line. Some nice touches from Fogarty as well, which hopefully he can take some confidence from. Schiller's try was a thing of beauty. Even if you take it out I thought he had a promising game, some nice strong carries and a great try saver as well.

As others have said, the real challenge now is to beat the teams we should over the next few weeks. Getting up for a road trip to Melbourne after a couple of weeks off is one thing, doing it week-in, week-out is another.
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 »

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.
Ata Mariota’s #1 fan. Bless his cotton socks.
User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 41995
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Elliott Whitehead

Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day

Post by Botman »

TBH there are a lot of contradictions in the rules of RL
I've got a long standing hatred of the charge down rule in general because i just dont fundamentally believe you should be rewarded for putting in a bad kick and recovering it... but that aside, you can charge down a kick, with your hands, have it very clearly go forward, like 20 metres forward, and if you regather it's play on and in no other circumstances in the game of RL can you play at the ball, propel it forward and it's not a knock on.
Last edited by Botman on July 19, 2022, 9:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 32522
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day

Post by Northern Raider »

Finchy wrote: July 19, 2022, 1:05 am
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.
Scenario A is the interesting one. Shielding the ball is deemed OK. Same scenario shielding a player attempting to diffuse a bomb is a penalty of an "escort". Identical action by the defender with completely different outcome.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
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 »

Northern Raider wrote:
Finchy wrote: July 19, 2022, 1:05 am
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.
Scenario A is the interesting one. Shielding the ball is deemed OK. Same scenario shielding a player attempting to diffuse a bomb is a penalty of an "escort". Identical action by the defender with completely different outcome.
You see some instances where the attacking player will shove the defender in the back - and in turn into the ball. It is then a complete lottery as to whether the ref awards a 20m restart or drop out. As with a lot of other cases it depends who you play for?
Shoving it in your face since 2017
User avatar
zim
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10639
Joined: July 8, 2015, 3:38 pm
Favourite Player: NRL: Joseph Tapine
NRLW: Grace Kemp
Location: Sydney

Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day

Post by zim »

Botman wrote: July 19, 2022, 9:03 am TBH there are a lot of contradictions in the rules of RL
I've got a long standing hatred of the charge down rule in general because i just dont fundamentally believe you should be rewarded for putting in a bad kick and recovering it... but that aside, you can charge down a kick, with your hands, have it very clearly go forward, like 20 metres forward, and if you regather it's play on and in no other circumstances in the game of RL can you play at the ball, propel it forward and it's not a knock on.
Me too for the exact same reasons. Tackle count shouldn't be restarted.
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 »

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/
Ata Mariota’s #1 fan. Bless his cotton socks.
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 »

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
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 »

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.
Shoving it in your face since 2017
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 »

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.
Post Reply