The rules are essentially simple when they are layed out, and the refs have a strict set of criteria to follow. We have consistency in the rulings now, a few years ago it was all over the joint.

The problems is eddie hemmings is completly cluelss about the rules and that filters down to many watching fans.

Bentham and his assistants are completely spineless.

And then they allow the most blatant obstruction yet!

Just embarrassing now.

Yeah no attempt to play the ball and a nfl linebacker block.
Then the video ref when a player is a good metre from touch. It's a joke totally frustrating for all fans on TV and at the game

That's Predictive text for you

I don't have a problem with the video ref chalking off tries, that is on of the things that you get with the system. My issue is in obstruction calls being made in the middle of the field where the player who runs behind is so far away that the obstructing player does no such thing. Next it will be the full back penalised because he crosses behind a player 40 yards ahead.
It is typical of the Rugby League to highlight on issue and make it the focus of the game and then in a few weeks time forget about it.

I don't see a story here, unless it is the Sky commentators trying to whip one up.

The decisions for all the disallowed tries were spot on, the rule is simple so that most of us can instinctively tell what was an obstruction, and Bentham clearly would have given them as obstructions as he saw them all, though rightly in a TV game let the VR check it.

What do people find hard about it? The man who goes through is offside. It is up to him not to get in the way. If he causes an obstruction, then an obstruction it is. I like my NFL, but I don't want blockers in RL.

In each of those cases it would have been easy for the penalised player NOT to obstruct, and the rules are being applied consistently.

This. The problem was the players and their timing, not the rules or the enforcement.

I think the VR should start using on screen graphics for obstructions like they do for offside. Show the line of play downfield from the ball carrier to the try line. If the line passes through a dummy runner and a defender, highlight the dummy runner in red to show that he is obstructing the defender stood behind him. Maybe then the Sky team will stop whipping up a frenzy amongst fans who can't spot an obstruction?

One of the biggest problems is the commentators don't seem to understand the interpretation, same as Stevo's "momentum rule". It's pretty simple. Someone needs to explain it to the properly so their misunderstandings are not influencing listening fans.

I understand if people disagree with the interpretation but that debate shouldn't be had during commentary.

The rules on obstruction are fine. There's already less variety in attacking moves than there used to be. Don't make running essentially the same move every time too easy.

Indeed. Sky's commentary is awful and getting worse. Adds nothing to the game, just awkwardly forced 'debate' and heaven-help-us 'humorous bickering'. Cringeworthy stuff. Say what you like about Union, at least their commentary usually adds something intelligent.

The use of dummy runners is taking away the need of any team to break a defensive line with the use of skill.

It's a non-story, created by Eddie and his total failure to understand the finer points of the game.

Wigan use that play all the time - on this occasion, their less experienced players got the timing wrong and as such, were guilty of obstruction; the end.

The problem with the current obstruction rule is the same problem with a fair few of our rules now and it seems almost as if we have interpretations written now to protect the Refs rather than actually get the right decision.

There is a checklist of things the refs go through for something like obstruction, was the ball caught on the outside of the dummy runner, was the dummy runner in the defensive line etc etc, the problem is that defining it so tightly and going through this checklist ignores the ultimate actually question, did the dummy runner obstruct the tackler/prospective tackler, so we end up with judgements which while largely consistent, aren't judgements of actual obstructions.

To paraphrase Brian McDermott, we get decisions by people who understand the rules but don't understand the game.

The obstruction rule should be the simplest and easiest to judge, did, in the refs opinion, the dummy runner obstruct a defender.

The only problem with it for me is the frustration of having to watch the VR twiddle his finger for 2 mins every time, knowing that 9/10 times the try would be given if there was no cameras...

I agree that the rule is correct but I'd rather watch rugby than watch two guys with headphones and a giant telly watching rugby.

The use of dummy runner on its own is a skill.

I understand what you're saying however the biggest criticism aimed at officials is the lack of consistency. Many recent rule changes (or rather interpretations) have tried to simplify the rules and base them on set criteria rather than opinion.

They should simply draw a line from ball carrier to defender in the direction of play. The only checklist you need then is: is there a dummy runner in between?

Well, they've been disallowing tries all year for obstruction then the ref obstructs a defender and they allow the try.

Both Cummings and Silverwood were saying that he had to stand somewhere, well er yes but not in the middle of the defensive line you numpty!

Most blatant obstruction all night.

Silverwood needs to be better than that. I know he has to be somewhere and you have to give St Helens some credit for using him, a good old fashioned tactic. But Silverwood's positioning was poor to say the least.

The video referee should be for offside and grounding decisions

It should be the onfield referee who decides the rest

Why? The VR decreases the likelihood of incorrect calls, and that's a good thing, surely.