Ok so the answer is, no you can't tell me where it says that the ball carrier can't run behind one of his own players. Thanks.

Thank God you're here. For 30 years I've been watching referees blow up for this offence.

Quick, tweet @RFLReferees and let them know they've been wrong all along.

I've been watching nearly twice as long and I think that the interpretation of this offence has changed in, possibly, the last ten years. But, as you probably can't tell me what the offence actually was either (please don't say McGuire ran behind his own player) I think I've made my point and I'll bow out. Thanks for your contribution.

It has? Any evidence to back that up or just your hazy recollections?


The offence was obstruction. That's what Silverwood asked for and what was given.

As Cummings explained at the time, "what we're looking for is: is the player in the defensive line (yes), did he run behind him (yes), is it close proximity (yes), does it have an effect on the man in front of him (yes - Hansen)"

He then goes on to say, "for me it's quite simple, he's run behind his own man in the defensive line and therefore it should be a penalty." If the dummy runner had carried on through the defensive line and out of the way it wouldn't have been an offence.

Silverwood, via the @RFLReferees twitter, has said in response to queries on the decision: "Rules state you can’t run behind your own man in close proximity to the defensive line which is what happened."

As I originally said, I thought it was a minor offence and a harsh call - but the correct call. A minor obstruction is still an obstruction, just as a minor knock-on is still a knock-on.

Happy to clear that up for you. Thanks for your contribution.

The Leeds player was not interfering with the play, McGuire was hard done by IMO. I wonder if the previous day had made the VR over cautious. Shaun Wane is a lot 'harder' than Sandercock !!!!

...but would you say he was 'harder' than Brian McDermott?

Correct. Like the Langley incident, where the refs feed on Twitter confirmed that the penalty was given not under the laws of the game, but on the basis of a "Policy", the laws (or at least a Note to Law 15) plainlky state that


So the rule states that he can dodge behind a whole ruck of his own players, or even bore his way through them, but we all know that the reality is the exact opposite, if the player in possession dodges behind even one of his own players, a pretty much automatic penalty will be given, in direct conflict with the laws.

Maybe not, he was a Royal Marine and as an ex-matelot I know not to mix it up with the 'green death', unless your pi$$ed that is

I said elsewhere that the Widnes defender pretty much ran straight into Gaskell, but he stuck his arm across the body of the defender when they made contact so disallowing it was probably the right decision.

According to the RFL Glossary: "Ruck refers to all players involved in and around the tackle and subsequent play the ball."

Therefore "dodging behind a ruck of his own players" actually means running behind the player who has played the ball and dummy half. It doesn't refer to running behind one of your own players in open play, and certainly not those lingering in the opposition's defensive line.

Sorry but you've cleared up nothing. If Cummings and Silverwood did say those things (and of course my advanced years cast a fog over anything that happened more than five minutes ago) I would ask them the same question, "Which rule states that McGuire can't run behind a team mate?".
And incidentally, the Leeds player ran a legitimate dummy run and raised his hands as soon as possible to show he was no longer involved in the play so, if it were obstruction it should have been classed as accidental - the correct decision for accidental obstruction is to allow play to carry on unless the defender was prevented from making a tackle in which case it should be a scrum. I'm not making this up - it's in the rules!
I personally don't care who wins when Leeds play Wigan, I'd just like the rules to be adhered to consistently. And it would be good if posters on here and referees stopped making them up as they go along.

Cronus is entirely wrong. An obstruction penalty isn’t given for running behind a team-mates back. In fact the obstruction penalty cannot even be given against the player in possession of the ball. It is perfectly legal for a player to loiter in the defensive line and it is perfectly legal for his team mate in possession to run behind is back. An obstruction is fairly simply ‘to impede an opposition player who isn’t in possession of the ball’ whether they are attacking or defending.

The only decision a referee needs to make is whether one player physically impedes another. In this instance, i dont believe any player was stopped from making the tackle on Mcguire by the presence of the dummy runner.

If Silverwood was in any doubt (especially given the incident the previous day) why did he make a positive indication that everything was fine with his 'play on' call. That in itself is the decider by far, the VR call casts serious doubts on Silverwood to make ANY judgement call and we may as well not have refs on the field at all then.
Saying there was inerference enough to impede the defender from getting to the tackler is garbage, there wasn't any. if he (the defender) is distracted enough to warrant a penalty then that applies to pretty much every single play in a game.
The VR call on this is IMO worse & is far wider reaching than the Ganson call, it undermines everything the refs train for and are using their expereince in deciding upon in the flow of a game.
Silverwood uses his knowledge of the game & his experience to decide in a positive manner that there is no interference (as in he is so sure he calls 'play on')
The VR call is in direct conflict to his 'correct' on field judgement, Silverwood was influenced by what happened the day before and that in itself is wrong, fear to make a decision and now everything might as well be officiated by computers and 10 refs with every single minor infraction being pulled up. Mayt as well go watch NFL ffs...
It is totally getting out of hand and whilst we want correct decisions the definition of certain rules are being (re-)interpreted so that the game as a spectacle is being ruined...

He didn't pull up immediately for the Sam Powell try that was chalked off for the same reason, so if McGuire's effort should stand, then Powell's can as well.

Raising your hands is irrelevant. Wigan had a try disallowed in the 2010 Grand Final for obstruction despite Farrell having his hands up. You can raise your arms to indicate you're not participating in play and feel you're out of the way, but if you're impeding, you're still impeding.

It's very simple. The VR clearly decided the dummy runner was impeding players in the defensive line (most likely Hansen) and was therefore guilty of obstruction. It may be pedantic, but there we go.

Didn't say it was.


No sh*t Sherlock.


...and the VR clearly decided the dummy runner was impeding players in the defensive line (most likely Hansen) and was therefore guilty of obstruction.

Perhaps you'd like to query it with Silverwood and Cummings, who provided very clear explanations? I know you think you know the rules better than qualified and experienced referees, but in reality you don't.

Agreed.

They've all conveniently forgotten/ignored the disallowed Powell try!

See that "a ruck". Specifically, "a ruck of his own players". Not "the ruck". It is clearly a different meaning.

I appreciate this is beside the point, but Powell was short anyway so it wouldn't have been a try.

You are wrong again, it isn’t irrelevant at all. The RFL instruct attacking players who are within the defensive line to stand still and put their hands on their head to signal to the referee that they are not attempting to interfere with play.

If you would like further information then all this information is available on the RFL website.

Seems odd then that you would think you had seen a referee give that offence for 30 plus years then.

Well you do come across as needing very basic things explaining to you
Nobody, at any stage, has disputed that the VR felt that way. At all. Would you like to put a hat on that straw man or is your backpeddling too distracting?

People have simply disagreed with the VR’s feeling that the any Wigan player was obstructed from tackling McGuire because of the presence of an offensive player in the attacking line. Richard Silverwood in fact didn’t explain why he felt Wigan were obstructed (because he didn’t, he quite clearly called play-on and was happy with the play in his judgement from the field) but simply explained Ian Smith’s thinking behind it. In Ian Smiths opinion there was obstruction, in Richard Silverwood’s on the field, there wasn’t. In my and many others opinion, there wasn’t. Its ok, it’s a subjective decision.

Whilst the full RFL rules are available to further educate you on the RFL’s website, I don’t have the time to, nor am I aware of a website which can educate you on the difference between a matter of fact and a subjective opinion. It is simpler and less time consuming to just tell you, you're wrong.

The Powell no try, and the McGuire no try were different. Crosby clearly runs into a Leeds defender obstructing him for making the tackle on Powell, where as Achurch despite being stood in the defensive line doesn't obstruct anybody. To the letter of the law it's a no try which I think is fair enough.

It isn’t ‘to the letter of the law’ though, it’s a strange defence of the decision because there is no ‘letter of the law’. It’s a subjective decision down to the on-field ref and then subsequently the VR. I wouldn’t complain with either decision. In my opinion it wasn’t obstruction, in Richard Silverwoods it wasn’t obstruction, in Ian Smiths it was and that is fine, it would be ridiculous to expect everyone to have the same opinion.

I just don’t get why the RFL (and others) are trying to defend it as a decision as a matter of fact when it isn’t, it is a subjective judgement. The answer to the question of why that try was chalked off is that Ian Smith felt a Wigan player was obstructed. We are allowed to disagree with that. Other refs are allowed to disagree with that. Either decision would have been ‘correct’. My only questioning of it is why we have a VR to over-rule the on-field refs subjective opinion. It may very well have been that if the places were swapped and Ian Smith referred that decision to Richard Silverwood he rules try. Why not just have the VR for matter of fact decisions (like the Watkins try, onside/offside, in touch etc) and the on-field ref for subjective ones like forward passes, obstruction, holding down, hands in at the ruck etc etc.

Nobody has forgotten about that, it hasnt been mentioned as it was clear.

Not, it's not. The RFL Glossary defines the words used within the Laws. Use of the word 'ruck' falls under the definition given. There is absolutely no reason why this would be an exception.