WiganWarriorsFans.com

robjoenz posted:

GeoffN posted:
Knew you'd bite, Rob!

Remember earlier in the season, when Klein & Ganson went "penalty-mad" over obstructions? OK, I was teasing a bit by saying it was the mood they were in, but it's still changed a lot, yet the rule remains the same, just the interpretation has changed.

There's always a little bit of interference, if only (for example) affecting the ball carrier deciding which side to pass the ball out.

One example that springs to mind is when the hooker "scoots" into a marker who wasn't square (Newton & Cunningham being experts at that) trying to get a penalty: the marker tries to look like he's just getting back onside but still affects play, yet sometimes it's penalised, other times it isn't.

:baaa:

I was out this afternoon so I didn't realise the reason behind this thread, but I've just watched the Saints game. I thought Silverwood was much too keen on the obstruction penalties. On one of them the tackle was made, I always argue; how is it obstruction if it doesn't cause an interference.

Regarding the Cunningham/Newton trick; a player has the right to stand anywhere on the field. You cannot exploit that player in order to win a penalty. It's the dummy half's choice whether he follows the retreating player. These don't get punished unless the retreating player effects a tackle.

GeoffN posted:
But he's still interfering with play, in an offside position.

robjoenz posted:

GeoffN posted:
But he's still interfering with play, in an offside position.

Ahh no... the dummy runner who has chosen to run at a retreating player is affecting play (it's his choice). Only when the retreating player makes a tackle before making the 10 has he affected play!

GeoffN posted:
Then why do we sometimes see it penalised even when he hasn't makes a tackle, but stands there, arms raised, trying to look innocent?
The reason Newton (and the rest) does it is because they've won penalties that way before, but it's still a lottery.