Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Jeba, post: 2438404, member: 1827"] a) It is the responsibility of the decoy runner/s not to interfere with the defending team. [b]He went through like any normal decoy runner does, only difference is that Hodges didn't pass it behind him, he didn't knock anyone over, he hardly touched anyone.[/b] b) The ball runner cannot run behind his own team and gain an advantage. [b]The advantage wasn't gained by Hodges running behind Hannant, it was gained by Scott's poor read and him being too slow to get across.[/b] c) A sweep player may receive the ball on the inside of a block runner as long as there is depth on the pass to him. It there is no depth he needs to receive the ball on the outside of the block runner. [b]There was no pass involved so this one is irrelevant[/b] d) Defensive decisions that commit defenders to decoy runners will not be considered obstruction. [b]Scott made a bad decision, therefore not obstruction[/b] e) Attacking players who loiter next to the play the ball can be interpreted as obstructing the defending team. [b]Again, irrelevant as this was away from the play the ball[/b] f) In the process of scoring a try an attacking player dives through or into the legs of the player who has played the ball a penalty will be awarded to the defending team. This action will be interpreted as obstruction. [b]Irrelevant[/b] g) If in the opinion of the referee/video referee the play had no effect on the scoring of the try the try will be awarded. [b]Fair to say it had an effect but the main effect came from the poor read from Scott.[/b] Like I said earlier, I wouldn't be blowing up if the try wasn't awarded but it's one of those 50-50 calls, and just lucky enough that it went QLD's way. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Active Now

No members online now.

Total: 45 (members: 0, guests: 45)

Reply to thread

Log in

Active Now