Re: Childs : Sun Apr 10, 2022 9:34 pm  

Firstly, thoroughly enjoyed your first half especially the opening 15 mins. The FT score was not a true reflection.

Lot of very balanced posts on this thread. Personally always glad to see Child in the "line-up". Yes he's a stickler but is very even handed. Sticking to the rules both ways, well what else can you ask from a ref?

Since Bentham hung up his whistle, think Child has been crowned king.

[Wildthing]

Re: Childs : Mon Apr 11, 2022 6:31 am  

It was a 50/50 call IMO, though I do think he should have gone to the VR to have a look.

Re: Childs : Mon Apr 11, 2022 8:03 am  

I thought it was obstruction personally

Re: Childs : Mon Apr 11, 2022 8:25 am  

coco the fullback wrote:

There was an obstruction, but he would have scored anyway without the obstruction. Technically correct.

There should be a rule change on this.
If the obstruction doesn't change whether the try would have been scored, maybe it should be ignored.

Re: Childs : Mon Apr 11, 2022 8:35 am  

Dummy runners are told either go through clean or don't at all. Our player ran straight into him. Was dumb by us as everyone has said the defender wouldn't have got across anyway.

Re: Childs : Mon Apr 11, 2022 10:16 am  

Apparently Jai fields scores late on and there’s a picture on social media with his foot in touch and linesman is close to the grounding

Re: Childs : Mon Apr 11, 2022 10:43 am  

wrencat1873 wrote:

There should be a rule change on this.
If the obstruction doesn't change whether the try would have been scored, maybe it should be ignored.

Unfortunately, it's another opportunity for gamesmanship. It was our own fault in some ways having a player in that position to potentially obstruct, but a 'smart' defender can run into a player in such a position if he realises he can't make the tackle. A bit like when they were deliberately throwing the ball at a player lying in the ruck to get a penalty before they changed the interpretation. I think they've got a lot more sensible with the obstruction rule, but a video ref could make a decision when a try is scored as to whether anyone was actually prevented from effecting a tackle. Difficult in real time.

Re: Childs : Mon Apr 11, 2022 11:02 am  

PopTart wrote:

Just watched it back.
I'd have probably given the try as Bateman actually stops the runner going through rather than the runner blocking him.
Close though so hard to blame the ref
Big moment for us though

Bateman played for the obstruction and won it, shame because it marred an otherwise good game by Child.

Re: Childs : Mon Apr 11, 2022 11:16 am  

coco the fullback wrote:

Unfortunately, it's another opportunity for gamesmanship. It was our own fault in some ways having a player in that position to potentially obstruct, but a 'smart' defender can run into a player in such a position if he realises he can't make the tackle. A bit like when they were deliberately throwing the ball at a player lying in the ruck to get a penalty before they changed the interpretation. I think they've got a lot more sensible with the obstruction rule, but a video ref could make a decision when a try is scored as to whether anyone was actually prevented from effecting a tackle. Difficult in real time.

That’s exactly what Bateman did. No chance to get there so ran up to Ashurst and put his arms round him on the off chance the ref would chalk it off. Pure gamesmanship.

On Child I actually thought he had a good game overall. He let the game flow and got most things right. Made for an entertaining affair. He’s come on a lot from years ago as a ref imo.

Re: Childs : Mon Apr 11, 2022 12:23 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

There should be a rule change on this.
If the obstruction doesn't change whether the try would have been scored, maybe it should be ignored.

Same for pulling a player back then?