2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day
Moderator: GH Moderators
Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day
Hey botman wait up, I wanna stink too!
Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk
- Seiffert82
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 27845
- Joined: March 17, 2007, 12:24 pm
- Favourite Player: Bay56
Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day
Or when the ref waves his clenched fist in the air to, I don't know, guide in light aircraft during a grand final.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.
Sent from my CPH2021 using Tapatalk
- Seiffert82
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 27845
- Joined: March 17, 2007, 12:24 pm
- Favourite Player: Bay56
Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day
They should absolutely contest the charge.greeneyed wrote: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.
Sent from my CPH2021 using Tapatalk
- Seiffert82
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 27845
- Joined: March 17, 2007, 12:24 pm
- Favourite Player: Bay56
Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day
Yep, the way he went down after having the ball knocked out of his hands was appalling. Matt Lodge stuff.hrundi89 wrote: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.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.
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.
It really is getting ridiculous.
Sent from my CPH2021 using Tapatalk
- Seiffert82
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 27845
- Joined: March 17, 2007, 12:24 pm
- Favourite Player: Bay56
Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day
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!
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!
Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day
I'm alone in the world in thinking the top gun sequel was pretty good, but not amazing...
Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day
Definitely NOT alone. There’s you, Kelly McGillis and Meg Ryan.BadnMean wrote:I'm alone in the world in thinking the top gun sequel was pretty good, but not amazing...
But I think that’s about it.
- 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
The GH Twitter page made the Fox Sports news.
https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl-pr ... 8a1867eced
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.
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.
-
- 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
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.radicalraider wrote: ↑July 18, 2022, 8:06 am Wighton captain instead of tapine.. more proof taps wont be re-signing
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)
I'm attacking in the right way, instead of just...attacking in the general direction. - Max Aaron (also eerily apropos for the Green Machine)
-
- 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
Interesting facts from nrl.comSeiffert82 wrote: ↑July 18, 2022, 4:15 pmThey should absolutely contest the charge.greeneyed wrote: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.
Sent from my CPH2021 using Tapatalk
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
Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day
Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day
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.
Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day
I haven't seen it and I hate it. Tom Cruise. Can't stand him.BJ wrote:Definitely NOT alone. There’s you, Kelly McGillis and Meg Ryan.BadnMean wrote:I'm alone in the world in thinking the top gun sequel was pretty good, but not amazing...
But I think that’s about it.
Shoving it in your face since 2017
Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day
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.RedRaider wrote: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.
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
So if the referee judges that a crowd whistle impacts the defence, I assume the correct ruling is to reset the play?dubby wrote:The GH Twitter page made the Fox Sports news.
https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl-pr ... 8a1867eced
- gangrenous
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16586
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day
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.gergreg wrote: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.RedRaider wrote: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.
Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day
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?gangrenous wrote: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.gergreg wrote: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.RedRaider wrote: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.
Shoving it in your face since 2017
Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day
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
Sent from my SM-A536E using Tapatalk
This place is woke.
- gangrenous
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16586
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day
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.gergreg wrote: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?gangrenous wrote: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.gergreg wrote: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.RedRaider wrote: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.
Last edited by gangrenous on July 18, 2022, 8:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day
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 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.
- gangrenous
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16586
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day
Beautifully put
Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day
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.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.
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
Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day
I get what your saying gerg.gergreg wrote: ↑July 18, 2022, 10:49 pmYou 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.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.
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.
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.
Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day
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.
-
- Simon Woolford
- Posts: 400
- Joined: March 5, 2007, 2:16 pm
Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day
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.
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.
Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day
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.
Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day
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.
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.
- 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
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.Finchy wrote: ↑July 19, 2022, 1:05 amScenario 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.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day
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?Northern Raider wrote: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.Finchy wrote: ↑July 19, 2022, 1:05 amScenario 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.
Shoving it in your face since 2017
- 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
Me too for the exact same reasons. Tackle count shouldn't be restarted.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.
Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day
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/
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.
- Seiffert82
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 27845
- Joined: March 17, 2007, 12:24 pm
- Favourite Player: Bay56
Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day
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
Re: 2022 Rd 18 V Storm: Game Day
Yes, 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
Shoving it in your face since 2017
-
- 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
GE 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.