Problem for me is most of those would be given at games where there's no big screen. The video ref is now finding reasons not to give tries, which is just frustrating supporters and players and I think it's a massive shame that we end up talking about these decisions instead of the skill on show.

Not sure what the solution is, because as people have pointed out these decisions are *technically* correct. Perhaps they should reduce the situations that the video ref can look at so the on field ref has to use their eyes instead.

It's about inconsistency in interpretation.

This only comes into play if a try is scored. Have you ever seen a ref call an obstruction like that in general play? They only call it if there's actually an obstruction. It makes sense to set that standard across the board.

Good point made above. In an effort to bring some objectivity and consistency to VR calls they've completely confused the rule.

Obstruction gets called in general play all the time. In potentially try scoring situations the referee quite rightly allows play to continue knowing he has the benefit of the VR. I honestly can't believe you would rather have more incorrect calls as long as they are consistent in their incorrectness! I'm sure if you had benefited from a [ucorrect[/u obstruction call you wouldn't be on here whining!

Have you actually read what I put?



And that's what the problem is with refs currently.



Nobody has said the decision is incorrect under the current rules. What an odd statement to make.

Yes, specifically the part about how they don't make these calls in general play.


What problem?


I didn't say anybody had said the decision was incorrect, so it's actually your statement that is odd. I'm referring to the fact that you're on here whining about the obstruction rule because it went against you. Had it been a saints player obstructed you wouldn't be complaining. Sour grapes!

If a player runs behind his own team mate while carrying the ball it's an obstruction.

Sounds simple but

How far away from the defensive line do they need to be for it to be OK?

For example, often after fielding a kick the fullback carries the ball across field then drops a pass to the winger coming in the opposite direction and the winger often takes the ball and runs behind the fullback, is that an obstruction.

The answer is no but why, surely the winger has run around the back of a team mate while carrying the ball, by the letter of the law it's obstruction? The distance between the ball carrier and defensive line is often so great that no or very little effect is placed on the defenders and therein lies the answer!

So back to the shift plays, how far from the defensive line can an attacking player be when catching the ball slightly behind a team mate before it's not obstruction.

The answer for me was said early on in the thread,
Has a defender been sufficiently impeded from defending the play, if the answers no then play on or vice versa