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.

Draw a line directly between defender and ball carrier. Then ask yourself if there is an obstruction to this line. If the answer is yes, it's obstruction. The fact that MM managed to go [iaround[/i the blocker is neither here nor there. An advantage had been gained.

No it isn't, and never has been. An obstruction is by definition, by interpretation and by name an offence whereby a player has been obstructed.

What we have right now is a ridiculous situation whereby the refs have tried to put an objective tick box decision making process on what was always and has to be, a subjective decision. They have removed the refs judgement from it and we have a poorer rule for it.

RL would be a better game had that try been allowed. Mcilorum wasn't obstructed, he found himself covering two men. The current interpretation rewarded him for picking the wrong one.

It is a stupid interpretation that simply tries to take the referees judgement out of it because it seems they don't trust refs to make a decision on it.

The obstruction should not be the complex hot mess it currently is. It should be very simple "in the opinion of the referee did a player unfairly obstruct a member of the opposition"

If the saints player catches that ball a split second later, behind the dummy runner, Mcilorums path is no less obstructed. It is a nonsense rule

It's stupid really because this only comes into play if a try is scored. You watch the game today and in general play how many times does the attacker *technically* obstruct?

It's just another case of the VR being a massive pain.

Sorry but you are trying to argue black is white. McIlorum had a player between him and the ball carrier. Ergo, he was obstructed. Had the ball been caught later, the ball carrier would have been to the side and not behind his team mate!

A
↑
B
↑
C

B is obstructing C from defending A because the route from C to A is blocked.

...A
↑
B
↑
C

B is not obstructing C because A is not stood behind him. If C ran along the obstructed route he would not meet A, making it a bad read.

When the three players are aligned you simply cannot argue that the defender has made a bad read as he is in the only position he realistically could be. When the players are misaligned, he must choose one, which is the whole point of a dummy run.

It was obstruction, catching the ball on the inside shoulder of his man gave Walsh that yard start on Mcilorum enabling him to create the chance

Correct decision

Just because incorrect decisions are sometimes made, doesn't mean we should strive to make more of them.

Yep. If the ref / 2 touch judges / in goal judge don't spot something that could have a margin of cms because of the technicality of the law, let it go and let's all enjoy our free flowing RL. I'm all for the video ref spotting things re ref can't possibly see (marginal ball groundings etc), but at the moment the number of times the VR is used is becoming boring and slowing the game down. I'd also take away the decision of on side / off side - if the TJ can't call that, which is their job, then it must be pretty marginal anyway, so give BoTD. I just want to watch rugby, not two guys playing with a big telly.

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