I'm wondering what was a Rhinos perspective of Josh Charnleys try that was chalked off for obstruction on Saturday night is. My thoughtswere that the runner was running at the gap and JJB moved towards him. And the try should have been given.

A try all day long. Ball had been passed before contact was made. This area is so inconsistent and its a toss of a coin if you get the decision

For me, that should always be a try. JJB would never have got over anyway, so it hardly stopped him. However, the exact same thing is dissallowed every week, so it had to be dissallowed.

They need to look at this rule properly so they are not dissallowing this sort of try every week. Obstruction should only be if you stop someone from getting to a player. If they had no chance regardless then it should be taken into account.

TRY

Looked fine to me on replays.

Like others, my main problem is consistency. If that sort of move was always ruled out I don't think people would mind so much, but probably 6 out of 10 would be given and 4 ruled out. Easy to see why coaches and players get frustrated.

I thought it was harsh to rule it out. I'd have been pretty unhappy if it was one of ours that had been chalked off like that.

It was a try. But as soon as it 'went upstairs' once contact had been made with JJB you knew it was not going to be given.

Consistent logic needs to be implemented over illogical letter of the law.

Definite try, this obstruction thing is getting stupid. Unless it blocks the tackler then can't see the problem

Exactly they are called 'dummy runs'. Big part of the attacking set-up, which defenders get drawn out etc. Massive part of the deceit side of the game.

Try for me but like others say above once contact was made it was never gonna be given yet we see "worse" given and this is one of the most inconsistent rules in the game.

A try.
It's a lottery whether they are given or not.
Cummins needs to give definitive guidance on this.

A player was taken out without the ball, however it did not effect the try being scored. But then again you could argue whether JJB was illegally taken out or if they just collided and he came of worse. So I dunno

Is that how you put your stats together?

JJB was taken out illegally, therefore regardless of wether he would have made the tackle or not (My veiw is he would have got no where near) the video ref made the correct call as a foul had been committed.

It should only be obstruction if the ball carrier runs through the "hole" created by the dummy runner, he didn't, so try every time on that score.

However, you cannot take a player out without the ball regardless of the situation, so penalty defence for that offence, not obstruction, was the correct call.

IIRC the laws of the game state that the attacking player must always give right of way to the defender - it's his responsibility to get out of the way and time his run to ensure that he doesn't prevent the defender from being involved in the play.

It's something that Wigan do very, very well and doesn't always get picked up. No video ref at that game and it would have been given as a try all day long.

Spot on Fieldheadrhino, the player dropped his shoulder into JJB therefore illegally taken out, Penalty defence. I personaly think its stupid but then it is either a rule or not and where do you draw the line?

Problem is if you walk that line, you may as well forget about dummy runs or decoy splits etc, as mostly when these occur contact is made by the defender and the none ball carrying runner. What game are we going to be left with.

Whether JJB was taken out, having 2 minutes on the floor, getting a hand-job, it's all moot, as he had would have had zero involvement in the scoring/stopping of that try. And I know he can shift, but his middle-name is not Bolt.

Really?

How often do you see that kind of penalty given in a game? Now think about how often teams use dummy runners - at least two, maybe three times a set?

It's a very, very small percentage of dummy runners that get penalised for making contact with defenders. If the defender makes a poor read and jumps onto the wrong runner, that's not a penalty. If the runner doesn't do anything to avoid contact, or initiates it, then that should always be a penalty IMO.

You very, very rarely see dummy runners get penalised in field. Only in really very blatant obstructions. But lots of times you will see players (none ball carrier and tackler) meet with an almost hug like contact, that neither seem concerned about. These never get penalised in-field. However if one of these occurs when a score gets looked at, they do get penalised.

This is rugby league, not American Football. As has been pointed out, a clear penalty. If a Wigan player charged into a Leeds man on the other side of the pitch, totally off the ball, that would be a penalty, right?

I agree with a lot you say Bloodbath but as has already been said Wigan walk a fine line and as I'm sure we will see on friday, it will be down to a fine art. Great it will make things more interesting on attack but again there has to be a sensible approach but unfortunatley the refs at our disposal do not have that sensible approach within them. In-field is always treated differently don't no why but the rules are more stringent when it may involve a try being scored

Try for me, although if the dummy runner decides to drop his shoulder and smack into someone, then he gets no sympathy from me for being so daft if the try gets knocked off

Usain Bolt's middle name isn't Bolt either....

Just saying like.

Bore off.