Surely it needs to be reviewed? Every match there seems to be a dubious call.

The rule puts all the blame on the attack and removes any responsibility from the opposition. It's v.heavily weighted in favour of defence - as if they couldn't have possibly made a bad call and read the game poorly.

I agree with Jon Wells

It's very easy for an attack not to obstruct. Don't get in front of the ball.
If anything I'd take the opposite view in that I think the rules are too lenient on the attack and penalise the defence for having blockers in their way.

That wasn't a dubious call, under the current interpretation it was clearly the correct call.

There is certainly a case (as Wells said) to review the interpretation. However the current system was replacing one purely based on opinion with one much simpler which can only help refs and make it easier for most people to understand. The more complicated it gets the more controversial calls there will be.

All the players and coaches understand the rules, the mistake was the St Helens players who mis timed their run/pass. A second or so later and it would have been fine.

The current "interpretation" is stupid. Some perfectly good tries have been ruled out due to the interpretation - the defenders don't get taken out of the play by the dummy run yet the try is still disallowed because of the runner being on the inside shoulder blah blah blah, it's rubbish.

It should be simple: Is a defender blocked out of the play by a dummy runner (either by standing in the line or running directly into a defender to create the gap...y'know actually obstructing the defensive line)? If the answer is no, it's a try.

I blame the match officials for the players not being to time passes and make dummy runs thus making obstruction happen!

That try from the J Wilkin over the head pass would have been allowed in the NRL. As usual the NRL have it right, J Sharp and R Rimmer should be speaking to T Archer and T Greenberg at least once a week, to talk about the rules, the NRL have it right about the 7 tackles from a 20 metre tap re-start too. And obviously 2 refs, and it infuriated me when Eddie Hemmings quite plainly makes a point of calling the positions scrum half and stand-off. Neither names make sense anymore. Nice to hear J Wells calling it five-eighth on occasions.

Can't see how anyone can have a problem with that decision today. The ball carrier had a man between him and a defender, what's there to argue about?

Cheating pie eaters. We was robbed! Best team lost.

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.

As there wasn't a flippin obstruction. If there's an obstruction then yes, but as I said earlier, in the NRL that would have been allowed, a billion dollar sport which is under constant scrutiny from press and supporters, so what have you got to say about that?

Technically there was an obstruction according to the rules. The interpretation was agreed in a meeting by the Coaches and officials to clear up a grey area. It was agreed that you cannot run behind your own player. As the ball was caught on the inside shoulder the St Helens player then runs behind his teammate. Had the run and pass been timed better then it would have been a try.

I can understand people's frustration with the rule but at least as it is, it is easy to understand and make the right call. It would be more frustrating if it was left to individual opinion and full of inconsistency.

So because referees in non-televised games are more prone to errors, you want to remove some of the technical support in televised games to make them just as prone to error. Because that makes sense.

Common sense would say that as McIllorum still made the takle on the next player out then he was not in any way obstructed. My Wigan head says............

If the ball carrier runs behind his own man, it's an obstruction.

As I said, it's very simple for the attacking team to avoid being penalised, don't have players in front of the ball.

As soon as they are they're offside anyway. So the attack is getting the benefit of not being penalised for offside, I don't see why they should get more benefit by being allowed to use those offside players to confuse or interfere with the defence.

Under the current (awful) interpretation, yes. But why should a try be disallowed for "obstruction" of no actual obstruction takes place? Surely the whole point of the rule is in the name of the infringement?

No one is debating the fact that it was technically a penalty. It's the rule they need to change. The interpretation has change massively. Going back 10 years, they only gave it if the defender was actually impeded, you could do it all day long provided the defender wasn't stopped physically.

I think the rule should be changed so that it's only a penalty if the defender is actually attempting to tackle the ball carrier (And not making a lazy grab at the dummy runner as happened today) AND is actually prevented from doing so. Today again he wasn't. When Walsh got the ball he was 10 feet away from the Wigan player, who made absolutely no effort to make the tackle (He was free of the dummy runner by the time Walsh approached him), he got the defensive read completely wrong and made a lazy grab at the dummy runner.

Yes, exactly. Ppl, read and digest that. Flip!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Have a look at the J Buhrer obstruction today, now that was an obstruction IMO, but a try was awarded; I reckon 9 times out of 10 that would be a penalty in the NRL, but somehow Manly Warringah got the benefit of the doubt today.

To play devils advocate and to use a phrase that Cummins has used many times in commentary although the defender wasn't actually touched he was denied an opportunity of effecting a tackle.

It has been publicly stated the coaches have agreed this interpretation to make the decision easier for the refs to make.

Have we redefined the word obstruct without me knowing? If a player stands between a ball carrier and a defender he is an obstruction! He is blocking the way.

So technically you could run behind all your team mates and as long as nobody is [iphysically[/i impeded you're alright. Except in reality, as soon as there is another player standing between you and the defender you've gained an advantage, however slight.

In the Canterbury v Souths match today, IMO Sam was obstructed in effect, well he was taken out of the line due to Eastwood being there, so in that instance then I would go with a penalty, but that at Langtree Pk today, it was so marginal and didn't affect McIllorum, well, I would have given that, just mind, only just.

The obstruction decision was one of the more blatant ones we have seen this season.

Most people forget that the man who has run past the ball is ofside and must not interfere with play. In this case he was clearly blocking the tackler from the pass receiver and so the penalty was obvious.

Had there not been a VR Silverwood would have given the penalty. He asked the VR to check the obstruction which means he thought there may well be one, and rightly in a VR match let play complete to have the VR check it.

In any case, it is the players who are entirely to blame. You may not like the rule, and you may not like the interpretation, but if you had been told that this season, you can't do that, then it seems exceptionally stupid and pointless to do that.

Cant believe this has got 3 pages to be honest.