. Wade Graham’s argument is flawed
At the post-match press conference last Saturday, Panthers coach Ivan Cleary said Sharks back-rower Wade Graham had taken a dive in the dying moments of the match to win an obstruction penalty and deny the Panthers a game-winning try.
Wade Graham defended himself by saying he was impeded and that “Ivan was entitled to his opinion, but he is not out there on the field with us”.
SAY WHAT! With that statement Graham just destroyed his own argument and, with it, the whole notion of the game sending these decisions upstairs for review. If, as Graham contends, Ivan Cleary is in no position to make the call because he is not on the field with the players, then where the hell does Wade Graham think the video referees are sitting?
If, as Graham contends, you need to be on the field to properly rule on obstruction (and I whole-heartedly agree with him) then can Graham explain why the on-field referees awarded it a TRY? The simple answer is that the on-field referee knew Graham was faking it and also knew that Graham never had any intention of chasing the man with the ball, who was long gone before Graham deliberately tackled a man not in possession of the ball to attract the referee’s attention.
Once the matter is referred upstairs, the whole obstruction rule takes on a completely different level of interpretation.
