NSW wins State of Origin.....

[kawadave]

Its a good fishing spot here....

[Naked Twin]

How can you say Queensland won when over half weren't born in QLD, and didn't play their first under 16 match in QLD. It is called State of ORIGIN not state of whatever want it to fucking be.

QLD were more effective with their general play but far too many contentious decisions, the penalty against Gallen for the first punch after the first punch on the basis if video evidence which didn't show everything, QLD and NSW laying in the tackle for NSW to be penalised only once and for one occasion where the time was less than others. QLD tactic was to slow the play and take away running footy.

All I know is I had three bets on last night. NSW with a 12.5 start paying $1.30, NSW with a 3.5 start paying $1.95 and total score to be between 35 - 44 paying $2.65, all came up enough to be paying for my next two track days

[red_dave]

For the past 5 or 6 seasons there has been a blanket rule that any player running behind a team-mate will be called an obstruction to avoid the confusion and inconsistency that was happening in the NRL prior to this rule being cleared up. The commentators all new it was an obstruction and even Mal Meninga new it was going to be disallowed when they showed the replay, but for some reason the video referee ignored the rule about running behind your own player and awarded the try.

The most one eyed Queensland supporters are Wally Lewis and Fatty Vautin and both of them made comments about how it should never have been a try. Honestly, if NSW had been awarded a try like that I would be just as disgusted as it was an appalling decision.

"In 2011 we added an important clause to the interpretations around obstruction plays," Harrigan and Raper said in a statement.

"The change was that: 'If in the opinion of the referee or video referee the play had no effect on the scoring of a try then a try will be awarded.'

"The reason for this change was that the obstruction rule had become so technical that tries were being disallowed when they shouldn't have been. In this case both video referees believed that Beau Scott wasn't impeded by Ben Hannant's decoy run and that Robbie Farah had minimal contact which did not alter the outcome."

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/stuart-on-a-collision-course-with-bill-harrigan-and-stuart-raper-over-origin-refereeing/story-e6frexv9-1226418329394?from=public_js

OBSTRUCTION
a) It is the responsibility of the decoy runner/s not to interfere with the defending team.
b) The ball runner cannot run behind his own team and gain an advantage.
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.
d) Defensive decisions that commit defenders to decoy runners will not be considered
obstruction.
e) Attacking players who loiter next to the play the ball can be interpreted as
obstructing the defending team.
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.
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.

http://www.rugbyleague.com.au/nrl/referee_guidelines.pdf


The fact is, If there was an obstruction, it was on Farah who had would have had Zero effect on stopping that try. (Farah should stop looking to milk penalties and start playing the game).

Beau Scott was let down by Todd Carney who was 5 metres up and to the right from where he should've been leaving gap that Hodges could've lay down and done the breakdance worm through and still scored.

The game is not what it used to be 10 years ago... It's evolving because of the ingenuity of people like Craig Bellamy, Des Hasler, Benji Marshall and others who add new attacking elements to their games. The rules need to be updated to accommodate these elements and everyone (including Wally and Fatty) need to recognise that.

[Nelso]

The game is not what it used to be 10 years ago... It's evolving because of the ingenuity of people like Craig Bellamy, Des Hasler, Benji Marshall and others who add new attacking elements to their games. The rules need to be updated to accommodate these elements and everyone (including Wally and Fatty) need to recognise that.

The problem is that all players these days expect anyone running behind their own player to be picked up for obstruction because they always are. You can see the hesitation in Beau Scott because he never expected Hodges to keep going. That expectation is there because referees consistently penalise anyone who runs behind their own player week in week out in the NRL. For some reason, State of Origin brings out contentious decisions because referees change the way they rule on these games. All of a sudden, things that normally would be penalised are let go. They can justify it all they want by saying it's the letter of the law etc. but the players still play to a certain expectation and when that interferes with the way the game pans out, it makes the game more about the ref's than the players and that is what I have a major problem with. You can tell by the body language that the players on both sides and the coaches, as well as the comments by the commentators expected it to be called an obstruction and it's that expectation that created the gap in the defensive line in the first place because defensive lines are trained to come in on the short lead because coaches know that if a player runs behind his own player and gains an advantage they will be penalised.

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.

Of course the decoy player had an effect on the scoring of the try as Beau Scott would never have hesitated and would most likely made the tackle and stopped the play. The fact that the play created the opportunity to score the try means it had a huge effect on the scoring of the try. So once again it comes down to the personal opinion of the video ref. This rule was only ever a clause put in (by the referees themselves!) at the end of the obstruction rules to cover their own arse when they make a shit decision, (just like this one!) because at the end of the day any decision they make can be backed up by "in my opinion it was a try".

This is the reason for my frustration as the referees have made the game more about themselves and less about the players and their performance on the field. I don't know about you, but I don't know anyone who watches the game to see the referee's performance, yet time and time again we end up discussing referee decisions instead of the incredible feats of the players. Back when I played and coached, you knew a referee had had a good game because no one talked about them or any of their decisions after the game. These days that's all we ever do and I reckon it has been that way since Bill "Hollywood" Harrigan has been involved in the game as he changed the attitudes of the refs and the way they want to be perceived.

b) The ball runner cannot run behind his own team and gain an advantage.

Did he run behind his own player? Yes. Did he gain an advantage from doing so? Yes. That is why it was a "no try" and it would be called that in any other game for the past 10 years.



At the end of the day I just want to see the players who had the best performance win the game and admire the skill level and performance it took to do so. The Queensland dominance for the last 6 years has been the result of an incredible core group of players and the belief and talent that they have bought out in their team, coupled with a substandard group of players put forward by NSW. I have enjoyed watching the skill level and execution of this team despite it being such a one sided affair. This year, however; I was looking forward to seeing two completely different styles of teams that were quite evenly matched play it out to see who would dominate and what the outcome would be, but in the end the competition between these great sides was marred by the third team on the field trying to exert their dominance and get everyone's attention.

[Naked Twin]

The referees are using interpretation of the amended rule to justify the decision they made. The amendment was not to stop players using a decoy runner which was being penalised as obstruction as a defending player would lay down on the ground and say he was impeded. In this instance the player ran around his own player and used them as a shepherd, which is where the fundamental difference is, but as I said it depends on how you want to interpret and apply the law.

There were so many things that didn't get pulled up on both sides that the whole system is looking like a joke. How can Gallen be penalised for the first punch (after the first punch was thrown by Tate) by the video referee, yet when they played the whole replay he didn't correct the decision? How is the player of the series not on report for tackling leading with his head, essentially headbutting, it was seen on at least 3 times in the game and knocked Farrah out. How is Cameron Smith not on report for grapple tackles.

[fireyrob]

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1341556116.705924.jpg (26.72 KiB) Viewed 1209 times

Bloody refs

[born green]

The referees are using interpretation of the amended rule to justify the decision they made. The amendment was not to stop players using a decoy runner which was being penalised as obstruction as a defending player would lay down on the ground and say he was impeded. In this instance the player ran around his own player and used them as a shepherd, which is where the fundamental difference is, but as I said it depends on how you want to interpret and apply the law.

There were so many things that didn't get pulled up on both sides that the whole system is looking like a joke. How can Gallen be penalised for the first punch (after the first punch was thrown by Tate) by the video referee, yet when they played the whole replay he didn't correct the decision? How is the player of the series not on report for tackling leading with his head, essentially headbutting, it was seen on at least 3 times in the game and knocked Farrah out. How is Cameron Smith not on report for grapple tackles.

I guess when u got a head like nat miles, u can lead with it, it aint goin look any prettier is it looks a bit like one i saw in a mag on wednesday...

[red_dave]

Blah Blah Blah

Blah Blah Blah

It's obvious our interpretations of the rules with this specific incident are different and understand that my interpretation is not biased cause it was in QLD's favour (as difficult as that is to believe).

I also understand your point about the Ref's deciding games in this and other topics/posts. It happens in every game and team are advantaged and disadvantaged by them. The gravity of that decision has made a massive impact on the pinnacle of our game, no doubt.

NSW fielded the strongest side i've seen in a long time. When your 9, 7,6 and 1 start clicking, there's no reason they can't win.