I’ve conducted an interview with a friend (Hudson, name
changed for privacy) who is equally passionate about the NRL reguarding the at
times controversial obstruction rule. I personally think the way it’s
interpreted is a joke and so many tries have been disallowed that shouldn’t have
been this year, mostly from decoy runners coming into contact with defenders.
The rule itself makes sense, if they’ve impeded another
player from defending then it should be a penalty, but I think what they
interpret as impeded the player is ridiculous. Take for example this week
Broncos vs. Souths, Matt Gillet’s try should have been awarded but since the
Rabbitoh’s defender purposely hit into another Broncos player (in my opinion).
I think what needs to be done is a CLEAR definition of what
impeding the play is, until that time the refs can call obstruction or not
obstruction on a whim, although they have been fairly consistent.
Anyway, here’s the interview:
D: What are your thoughts and opinions on the obstruction
rule?
H: The decoy runners have to get their act together and not
bang into an opposing player. But still, if the opposing player gets a small
bump they shouldn’t be falling over like soccer players.
D: So what you’re saying is a small bump is okay, but a push
isn’t?
H: Basically, yeah. But since the players all try to milk it
and fall over then cry obstruction the decoys should simply stop running into
players.
D: You think the players need to adjust, rather than the
rules?
H: Well not much can be done about either, so I don’t really
know
D: So you think leave the rule as is?
H: Yeah, just get the players to pull their heads in.
D: Did you see Matt Gillet’s disallowed try this week?
H: Yeah, the defender clearly ran into the Broncos player
without the ball. Clear case of milking it.
D: I’ll agree with you there, thanks for the interview mate
H: No worries
There you have it, folks. Two sides to the obstruction rule.
What do you guys think?
