The definition of the law constitutes the law itself, not what it's called.

Yeah, it's stupid.

I'd like the player to be moving towards the ball carrier either before or after the kick has been made and then a movement of the hands to try and block the kick.

You know, the type of things you expect when charging down a kick.

Today, bowen was stood on the spot and tryed to catch the ball and knocked it on.

Why, rather than acknowledge the poor criteria of the current law, are you arguing for the sake of arguing? Today was a blatant knock on, and the only reason they were able to consider it a charge down is because of the current ruling in place.

Maybe so, but in the link you used the first word is definitely 'Charging' when you said it didn't mention the word?

Except it wasn't. It was a charge down according to the letter of the law.

What you'd 'like' is irrelevant. .

Never a charge down.

The key word is "block". To me block indicates that it's moving to prevent the ball from going forward.

Bowen clearly sticks his hand to the left - that's not blocking - that's playing at the ball.

Bad, wrong decision and no matter how Wigan fans can try and spin it otherwise it was one of many. Gladly, it didn't make a modicum of difference.

Whilst I agree to a point about the difference between tv and non-tv games, I'm not so sure if all the tries would have stood. In TV games refs are deliberately allowing the game to continue because they know there is the video there to refer to. If they didn't have that backup they'd be forced to make an active decision rather than a passive one and on at least some occasions the tries would still be disallowed.

Ok, that's right. So we're all clear now? Let's move on.

Then why did you ask? You asked what the criteria should be I gave my opinion.

Arguing for the sake of arguing.

Instead of actually debating the law all you've come back with is ''that's the law, it's the law, the law is this, that's the law''.

Mind numbing.

Yes, I did ask. But whatever you'd 'like' is indeed irrelevant. The law is what it is, like it or lump it.

Ok, let's look at what you'd 'like': [i"the player to be moving towards the ball carrier either before or after the kick has been made and then a movement of the hands to try and block the kick"[/i. Ok, so let's say a defender is stood stationary in the defensive line. The ball carrier runs to him and kicks from 2 metres away. The defender puts his arms up, blocking the kick, knocking it towards the attacking team's posts. You'd call that a knock-on just because the defender isn't moving towards the ball carrier? Doesn't wash with me. The current rule is correct, even if the application of it looked a bit daft today.

I'd 'like' to see shoulder charges back in the game. It's irrelevant because they're currently illegal.

In both cases, and in the case of Sutcliffe on friday, it was as much the defender making contact with the attacker as the attacker making contact with the defender.

In no case was it a gap created by an obstruction, they were gaps created by poor defence and poor reads. Players can't just disappear, they can't not exist anymore or make themselves ghosts if the defender chooses a line which goes through them, what are they supposed to do?


Its a poor rule which is spoiling the game.

it isnt an offence to be in front of the ball.

I think bringing the video ref in was a great idea initially, to check the groundings or if someone is in touch. But now we are seeing the thing the critics have always said, which I believe has become true only recently: It completely ruins the flow of the game.

Im guessing at this figure but as a conservative guess id say over 50% of tries scored on TV games go to the video ref. Analysing every dummy runner in slow motion from every angle repeatedly. Why is it that when looking at the grounding, its benefit of the doubt to the attacking team. Yet with obstruction, a 50-50 call almost always goes in favour the defensive team.

I too think that the overuse of the VR is spoiling the game - bringing it in to disrepute actually - but, with multiple camera angles and slow motion replays it would a bad move to get rid of it altogether. How about this? The on field ref makes all the decisions but each team can ask for moves leading to tries, allowed or disallowed,to be reviewed by the VR. Each team can have maximum three reviews per game. I'd also allow the ref to refer the VR if unsure how to restart after the ball's gone out of play. Don't know if it would work but It would put the onus back on refs to take responsibility for making decisions and, possibly, cut down on the number of VR calls in a game.

The RFL have sanctioned much more far fetched ideas. I like the idea in principle but Id be a bit worried about it becoming a bit pantomime e.g. last minute try controversially given but the aggrieved team have used their 3 reviews. I just think the system would be the talking point, and take away from the quality on the pitch

They'd definitely have to use their three calls judiciously. In your scenario it just puts the responsibility back on the ref. Perhaps they'd get better!!!!

The Dorn no try was certainly not a case of that. It was a case of a defender having to run around an attacker who was in the defensive line. It made the gap between defenders bigger and Dorn ran through that gap.
That is obstruction.

Tell us, what poor read was on show from the Wigan defender who had to run around Hauraki for the Dorn no try?

What are you on about "if the defender chooses a line"? The line is a direct one between a defender sliding across and the ball carrier, in this case Dorn (or where Dorn will run). There is an attacker in the way of a defender trying to get to the ball carrier. That attacker is offside. It is obstruction. It is effectively a blocker.

As for players making themselves ghosts or disappearing you're just being silly. They have run to that position, no-one has made them do that, it's not like a player who has just played the ball who can't control their immediate position. If they run to that position it is their responsibility to ensure they don't obstruct the defence.

I don't see the rule as spoiling the game, I see it as poor attack.

No one has said it is, so I'm not sure why you've brought that up other than as an attempt to divert the discussion away from its actual point.

Because you well know that whilst it's not an offence (or not one you'll be penalised for) in and of itself to be offside, it is if you interfere with play. Which is what the discussion about, offside players interfering with play.

If an offside defender ran toward the ball carrier and interfered with the attack they'd be penalised. I don't see why offside attackers should be allowed to interfere with the defence and not be penalised, they're not allowed to from a kick.

bl**ding hell, if the refs got everything right and there was no controversy wouldn't it just be the most boring thing ever? these kind of things add to the drama of sport even if its your team that bears the brunt

Yeah it's one thing for the on field ref to make a mistake in the heat of the moment and with him having to keep up to the pace of the game.

When the VR starts coming up with poor calls from the benefit of several replays and angles then it's pretty rubbish.

the gap was already there, the Wigan defender had come in Hauraki had set off on a diagonal line. he continued on that line and the Wigan defender moved into his line. That space does not belong to the Wigan defender. What is hauraki supposed to do at the moment the pass went behind him to Dorn? He can't disappear, its not physically possible to immediately stop dead, he cant cut back in because thats a deviation from his line that realistically will take him into Wigan defender and certainly be obstruction. Hauraki carried on his line and Dorn went through a gap that already existed. It was poor defence from the Wigan defender who left a huge gap in the defensive line, (as well as the player on the outside not coming in because he fell for the dummy) that was rewarded with a penalty. Realistically that entire gap was covered not by good Wigan defence but simply by virtue of Cas using a Dummy runner. Under what you state, there is no legal way for Cas to exploit that Gap simply because they had a dummy runner.

Defenders arent rooks. They can move in directions other than straight up and down and side to side. Hauraki was in no way effectively a blocker. He was a Dummy runner who ran in to a gap. The defender moved in to the same gap. Nobody owned that space.

What do you want Hauraki to do? He has set off on a line, he can't cut back in or he runs straight into a defender and obstructs him, he cant carry on on his line or the he will have obstructed the defender, he cant move outside because then he would be blatantly shepherding Dorn through the line in the most obvious obstruction and he cant stop dead.

It was poor defence allowing that gap to open. Wigan gave up ownership of that space by not having anyone in it. A dummy runner has every right to run into a gap, if a defender then decides to run into him then that is the defenders mistake.

Hauraki ran in to a gap in the wigan defensive line, Dorn ran into a gap in the Wigan defensive line, the Wigan defender ran in to Hauraki. Im not sure what part of that is poor Cas attack.

Its not a diversion, its simply highlighting this new offense you have made up.

There are more criteria to being offside than simply being in front of the ball. You are allowed to be in front of the ball. To be in front of the ball is not the offence of offside. Obstruction is not an offside offence, it can (albeit rarely) happen behind the ball.

Obstruction is nothing to do with being in front of the ball, even defenders can be guilty of it.

The Wigan defender moved into the line of Hauraki? You are joking aren't you? In that case all attacks need is 3 players. 2 blockers and a ball carrier in between them. All 3 run at a gap in the defensive line and then no defender can slide across to stop the ball carrier.
Do you see how silly it is to suggest what you just have?
What can Hauraki do? He can not run that line in the first place, or time it so that he doesn't get in the way of the defender sliding across. Simple. Hauraki was offside, like any offside player it is his duty not to interfere with play. He did.


So the defender should have to move around an offside attacker? Even though he's directly in between the defender and the ball carrier? You do realise what that is don't you? It's called obstruction.


Hauraki can not run that line in the first place. I honestly can't believe you're trying to say that a dummy runner can't help where he runs and where he puts himself. It's ridiculous.


It might well have been poor defence that initially allowed a gap to open up and for Cas to target it, it wasn't poor defence that didn't allow that gap to be closed again. It was Weller Hauraki. A dummy runner doesn't have the right to run into a gap and stay there, he has to get through the line. He also has a duty not to interfere with play when offside. Otherwise, as I said above, tries can be scored very easily with 2 blockers either side of the ball carrier. Hauraki could have done several things differently which would have resulted in there being no obstruction. He could have run through the line, he could have run at the opposite shoulder of the defender thereby still allowing him to slide across, he could have stopped short of the defensive line. It's very easy not to obstruct.
Hauraki ran into the defensive line and stopped a defender from getting to the ball carrier. It's a simple obstruction. If he hadn't done it then Dorn might well have still scored, but the Wigan defender wasn't given the opportunity to try and get to him.


The part where the Hauraki runs into the defensive line and obstructs defenders. That's poor attack. He doesn't have the ball, he has no business being in the Wigan defensive line.

Ah. So it is an attempted diversion then.

Seriously Smokey I don't know what your problem is as to why you continue to insist that black is white.

there is nothing in what i have put which isnt fact. I dont know why you are insisting that being in front of the ball is offside or that obstruction is an offside offence. Offside is entirely irrelevant to obstruction.

Hauraki was not offside. If he was offside the offence would be offside, not obstruction. Why on earth are you trying to conflate the two? find me any reference to offside in the rules about obstruction and I will hold my hands up and admit i am wrong.

Why is Hauraki not allowed to run at a gap as a dummy runner?

and do you know how you defend that play? Dont create allow a gap in your defensive line, you know good defence. You know how else Wigan could have defended that play? not fallen for the dummy Dorn threw.

Yes and no it isnt. The Obstruction rule is only a sentence long. Its a pretty short and simple one. I dont know why you are adding things to it

Why can't a Dummy Runner run at a gap in a defensive line? if a dummy runner can't run at a gap in the defensive line, he clearly can't just run straight in to the defender and take him out. Where can he run?

Hauraki was running through the defensive line, it was the Wigan player who stepped in to him to stop it. That defender stepping in to Hauraki is what you called obstruction. Hauraki is allowed to run through a gap in the defensive line. If he isnt allowed to run through a gap in the defensive line then he can't run anywhere. Why is the defence being given ownership of the gap simply because they allowed it open?

Again, these tries you state would be scored very easily with 2 blockers either side would be very easy to defend, dont allow the gap in your defensive line to open up, and if you do, make sure you run toward the man with the ball not the ones without it, or as it is known in RL, good defence.