Unless changed this Rule will kill the game and Brian Nobles 5 Drives and a Kick will bore everyone to death.

Rewarding crap defence at the moment. The Dorn no try and the Sutcliffe no try last night are both shocking decisions.

all these try's disallowed for obstruction, how come the very same thing isn't being penalized 80 yards down the field?
im pretty sure nearly every set would have some sort of obstruction but are very rarely, if ever, given.
is it only obstruction if its in the opponents '20?

The whole clue as to what should be looked at is in the name of the rule, is a player obstructed? No? Then it's a try. The RFL are trying to get rid of dummy runners and rewarding terrible defensive reads, it's embarrassing.

What was the difference between the Dorn no try and the try that was given? Inconsistent and poor interpretation.

surely good attacking play should be rewarded in those instances? if a player deliberately obstructs a defender then yes have a look but most of them are just poor defensive reads.
very poor

If this match wasn't on TV, both of those tries would have been given. That's the problem.

The decision to give Clare's try very much felt like "I disallowed one, so I better give this one."

Both. BTW I think should've been given, that just what I felt Thaler thinking was. The speed of the decision to say Bowen had definitely charged down after just one long shot view was iffy, he did then try a second closer angle but seemed to have already made his mind up and wasn't going to reverse it.

There was an interesting comment in commentary in the Wigan Cas game. I think it was made by noble.

He said the coaches and officials had a meeting to clarify the obstruction rule. Since then there seem to have been a lot more penalties given for it. I think the refs are now applying the letter of the law rather than applying commen sense.

To be fair the 2nd try (that was given) Shenton did knock on in the build up so it evened it's self out in the end.

Agree with an earlier poster. Unless a defender is obstructed from making a tackle that would have stopped the try, then the try should be awarded. I don't see why anything else should be considered.

And what about players wandering about in front of the fullback to shield him from the would be tackler?

How on earth is a team supposed to defend against 3 dummy runners hitting their line while the player with the ball goes round the back. Bring back players and moves with some skill involved instead of just running half your team empty handed into the defensive line.

That would almost certainly be obstruction.

yep

need a video ref at every ground!

but not using it all the time, would like to see the refs make a decision for themselves sometimes! or a limit on how many times you can look at it on the video.. 5mins way too long!

I'd be very interested to here what people want the rule changed to. Wording is everything with such things.

At the moment, all players have to do is a) not run behind their own player while carrying the ball and b) not stand in the line when they're done being a dummy runner, but carry on through.

Yes refs are being pedantic about it, but the last thing we need is to change the rules so a ref has to [iinterpret[/i whether someone's been interfered with.

(I do admit that defenders protecting their fullback running the ball back by standing in the chasing defensive line is annoying as anything in our sport at the moment, and should be penalised far more often)

This. If anything, I'd prefer they made the obstruction rule even stricter. We're just watching essentially the same move on every play.

It's comments like these that are the reason it's a mess now, "Inconsistency poor interpretation."
That is why they are trying to clearly difine the laws of the game and the refs have no choice but to stick to it and no longer allowed to use common sense.

There was a difference to the first obstruction and the second, the first was a slight obstruction(ref no long allowed to judge if player would have still scored or not) the second was not.(but they still go to VF to see if there was the slightest of obstruction.
Same with the stupid charge down decision. They stick to the law and don't use common sense, to remove Inconsistency and poor interpretation.

Bring back Inconsistency and poor interpretation please all is forgiven ,absolute rules and no common sense allowed is a farce.

Sticking to the rules and being pedantic is all well and good, but ignores the fact that in games that are not on TV, and on plays that don't result in a try, the obstruction rule is NEVER used by the referees.

In a game of 150-200 plays (no idea on the exact number?), it probably happens in nearly every set of 6 but the only time an obstruction decision is given is when it is given by the video ref. If they are serious about cutting it out of the game, they should penalise every single time a player runs the ball behind his a man from his own team, regardless of where it is on the pitch.

The game will have about 100 penalties in it, but if the referees want to be pedantic about it then that is what they have to do. Teams will adapt their tactics and we will get back to 5 drives and a kick with outside backs never touching the ball.

My preference is to have none at any.

the rule largely worked well for years as it was.

I have no problem with a referee interpreting the issue, its kind of what we pay them for.

The rule is simple, its judgement is also pretty simple. Was, in the opinion of the referee/video referee, a player illegally impeded. It really doesnt need to be any more complicated than that. Trying to put strict rules on a situation where there always going to be shades of grey guarantees we get poor decisions.

It also means that no decision is wrong. If in the opinion of the Ref/video ref he obstructed him, its obstruction, if in the opinion of the ref/video ref he didnt, then it isnt.

The same can be said on every rule though - that's a complaint about the video ref system rather than the obstruction rule. The most obvious recent example of this is the "no try" for Luke Walsh vs Huddersfield 2 weeks ago - no video ref = try given, if he'd of dropped on it = play on - yet a penalty was conceded because it was on sky. In an age of streaming why a video ref can't be in a pod somewhere and have all the games on at any given time streamed in is beyond me - but that's another argument. None of this is an argument to change the obstruction rule, just how it's administered.

The game has roughly 500-600 plays a game - and every single one of them starts with a player having the ball behind a team member - but they're not interfering with the defensive line/ in the defensive line - hence they're not given. I fully agree that every play where a player runs behind his own man, who is standing in the defensive line should be penalised - which is often not, particularly when the fullback/ winger is running the ball back. But again, that's how the rule is administered, not any reason to change the rule.

Or you know, adapt a style of play whereby players either run through a defensive line as a dummy runner (which is what they're supposed to do) and just stay on the outside if the man... Simple

Hauraki did that, he even made sure he didn't run into a defender and the try was still disallowed because Dorn went through the same gap, despite the defender not being impeded by the time Dorn even started going in that direction.

id go with that...but with sky it aint happening!

I don't think that it's just a T.V thing.

Last week Wakefield had a try disallowed for a nothingness, the Ref’s have had a directive from our glorious leaders.

They really need to review it because it has become farcical.

It is working extremely well, and everyone knows where they stand. The only mystery is how the coaches, who Sky said were all in on the deal of the new interpretaion, tolertae their players still doing these things when they should KNOW that they will automatically concede a penalty.

In some cases, i can sympathise with people who argue that some specific instance was not that much of an obstruction, and SHOULD not have been a penalty. But very few argue that the CALLS have been wroing, under the new interpretation. Therefore there was no excuse for the players having given away the pen. It's a bit like driving at 40 because you "don't agree with" the 30 limit, and whingeing when you get a ticket.