Definately an obstruction... clear as day. The 2nd dummy runner ran through and took a player out (knocked him on the ground)
Webb was running to the left, stopped, ran right and went straight through the hole... if you look closely you can see the roosters player still on the ground.
Webb was running to the left, stopped, ran right and went straight through the hole... if you look closely you can see the roosters player still on the ground.
the obstruction was caused by lauaki running his line, which unfortunately took him straight into a rooster, which created the hole for webby.
damn it was disappointing!
damn it was disappointing!
It's one of those tries that could've gone either way. I've seen worse ones given try than that. All depends on what mood the video ref is in on the day. Can't complain with the decision too much and most importantly it didn't matter in the end.
I dunno there might a been a slight(at most) obstruction but i still think it shoulda been a try. The only reason the roosters couldnt tackle webby was cos they fell for the huge dummy he threw.
Go_The_Doggies said:
If only you were the video ref, webby woulda had a try he really wanted in his last game in front of the faithful.
Come on, I'm a Warriors supporter too... but SLIGHT obstruction??? Lauaki completely knocked a Roosters defender to the ground. On his back...
Webb actually stopped, saw the giant hole left by the guy laying on the ground, then CHANGED direction and run straight through it. If it was the other way around we would want the call.
Webb actually stopped, saw the giant hole left by the guy laying on the ground, then CHANGED direction and run straight through it. If it was the other way around we would want the call.
funny , over here in oz there was an piece in one of the papers , about the refs . n vid refs , they spoke of brent webbs try being dissallowed , and that the warriors werent given benefit of the doubt ,
then at the other end , melbourne scores , and the player loses the ball as hes scoring , and benefit of the doubt was given ? ... why why why ..even the aussies cant understand it ..
who knows ....
then at the other end , melbourne scores , and the player loses the ball as hes scoring , and benefit of the doubt was given ? ... why why why ..even the aussies cant understand it ..
who knows ....
I think it comes down to video refs with either personal grudges to push or that the reason there in the video refs box and not on the ground anymore is that there no longer up to it, and are also proving that there no longer up to it in the video refs box either.
So..what? Now whenever one player runs a great line and the opponet just 'happens' to fall on his backside that will be obstruction all the time? A bit iffy
Skinny_Ravs82 said:
No disrespect... but read the rules.
If an attacking player interferes with a defender that advantages the attacking team... it's obstruction.
Secondly, a great line IS NOT running straight into the opposition and knocking him flat on his back. A great line is running through a gap.
It is quite simple. If this was allowed you would have two blockers running straight at defenders and the guy with ball running behind them.
No need to get defensive mate, I was just wondering is all because that obstruction rule seems to change whenever the Warriors play
It doesn't change, the rule is the same now as it was before. It's all about interpretation. Different people/refs have varying opinions on what 'advantages' an attacking team. But this onw was blatant. Just because the commentators are blind doesn't change that.
www.nrl.com.au used to have the rule book on the site, maybe people should read it (I'm not being defensive, it is a serious comment).
www.nrl.com.au used to have the rule book on the site, maybe people should read it (I'm not being defensive, it is a serious comment).
aussie_warrior said:
No disrespect....but this happens in every game of league, so if we all "read the rules" then how many tries that have been scored over the last 5 years in fact we'rnt? called opening a can of worms!
Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because a try last week, last year, or 5 years ago was given incorrectly doesn't mean that this one should....
Plus it doesn't happen every game. Maybe one questionable call from all the games in a week. At least 75% of those are ones like this where it was clearly an obstruction. You get commentators saying it was a try and all of a sudden it's gospel. You start threads on it and all of a sudden it's happening every game. You start comparing them to other tries (or non tries)... Who cares? It was an obstruction, simple fact... get over it.
No disrespect, but if you read the rules and watched the game then you wouldn't have started this thread. No can of worms there.
Plus it doesn't happen every game. Maybe one questionable call from all the games in a week. At least 75% of those are ones like this where it was clearly an obstruction. You get commentators saying it was a try and all of a sudden it's gospel. You start threads on it and all of a sudden it's happening every game. You start comparing them to other tries (or non tries)... Who cares? It was an obstruction, simple fact... get over it.
No disrespect, but if you read the rules and watched the game then you wouldn't have started this thread. No can of worms there.
no offense intended ravs, but i disagree we hav hafd the rub of the green a few times this year, all teams get the 50-50 calls and i think its been fair on either call this yearSkinny_Ravs82 said:No need to get defensive mate, I was just wondering is all because that obstruction rule seems to change whenever the Warriors play
aussie_warrior said:
The bloke was no where near the man with the ball. So what your saying is that someone gets knocked over no where near the ball and it's a no try?
Your the one that needs to go read the rule book cause you seem to know very little about the game and have probably never played. Your on the side of the Tasman where most arrogant league follow are, best you stay there
Similar threads
Last Game
12 May
24 - 12
7.2
Total Avg Rating
10.0
Your Avg Rating
Highest Rated Player
Lowest Rated Player
Compiled from 8 ratings