Agree - and as Eddie said not in the spirit of the game.

Anyone who knows the rules will know he did nothing wrong.

Try.

Probably rubbish but i am sure you can be penalised for anything that is seen as against the true spirit of the game.

If players were penalised for doing things that were against the spirit of the game, matches between the 'top' clubs would end up with half a dozen players on the pitch; that's just more of Eddie's stuff and nonsense.

Riley ran in a straight line at a constant pace; he was not obliged to move aside to let someone tackle Atkins. Jeffries did the identical thing against us last week - I don't remember any outcry about that.

Riley did nothing wrong and was entitled to carry on running in that direction. If people think that was an obstruction then they don't know the rules of Rugby league.

Anyone who thinks that try should have been disallowed is either incredibly stupid or Eddie Hemmings.

Lol. Slowing down not in the spirit of the game ?. It's ducking hilarious. We will have a Phil Clarke Speedo meter next. So many stupid people.

it was a perfectly good try infact id go has far has saying it was great awareness from riley to do what he did,he never changed his line of running just simply took off a yard of pace to make the defender after go round him which he didnt.

Atkins was in easily anyway, maybe if the defender was closer there would have been a problem.

Sometimes they just need a talking point and so try to create something out of nothing.

Definte obstruction. Slowed his run tp deliberatly get in the way of the defender.

Our game will start tp become American Football if blocking like that is allowed.

This.

Dear O dear. Think how stupid you sound. Are you seriously saying referees should look at sprinting speed as a pointer to judge obstruction?? If he had changed his line and ran in to the.player then fine but he just slowed down

It was perfectly legal, and clever play from Riley to get himself between the ball carrier and the chasing defender. Riley did exactly what he should have done in that situation.

this , we really are hated aint we

Nothing wrong with what Riley did, just intelligent play. Had he stuck an arm out or changed the angle of his run it would've been a different matter.

is the right answer.

Its no real surprise that a brain dead Goon is calling it obstruction.

Had roles been reversed, we would probably have been screaming that our equivalent of Riley was merely running in support of the ball-carrier, and it was hardly his fault that the defender was the wrong side of him?

I thought I saw some contact between the two, and at the time I was screaming obstruction like most other people - more in hope that it might influence a decision than anything else. But I don't think any contact was anything other than our man trying to get round Riley, and its hard to contend anything other than Riley was doing what he should have been and was where he should have been.

No matter how hard I might wish for a valid reason for it to be otherwise.

This.

Very true - it could even be argued that if the Bratfut player had concentrated on going for Atkins, rather than running into Riley and trying to milk a penalty, he might have got a better outcome?

Atkins would have scored yes, but imo Riley knew exactly what he was doing. He clearly slows down once he is in the middle of the two players and that meant Atkins scored under the posts and not in the corner.

If he was chasing as a support player then surely he would want to be on the inside of the Bradford player??

EDIT - Had he not CLEARLY slowed down then I'd have said no problem. No speedometers needed it was obvious.


Still, was a much better game than I anticipated.

Nothing wrong with it. Perfectly legitimate and fair try. If the defender wants to get to Atkins he can always go around Riley.

The speed of running doesn't come into it (no matter how much you want it to). It's all about angles of running, and Riley ran a perfectly straight line.

It looked worse than it was because the Bradford player tried to milk it and con the officials by running staight at Riley then pushing him. Surely that's not in the spirit of the game.

If that's obstruction then we may as well make it illegal to support the ball carrier.

Didn't help that the Bradford player pushed him to try and 'milk it'

Why is nobody mentioning the chasing Bradford player reached out to push Riley in the back? Had he simply run in to Riley, rather than reaching out to push, then there would have been a more legitimate and debateable call for an obstruction due to Riley slowing down. As it is, the defender was running from an angle that brought him from in-field towards the touch line, logically with Riley slowing down that should have made a more favourable angle for the chasing man to get past Riley and at Atkins.

If Riley had maintained his speed, given the angle the chasing defender was running in from, he would have been much better placed to shield Atkins from being tackled had the Bradford man (I really can't remember who it was) had enough pace to catch him.

An alternative view - If the fullback had been back, leaving Atkins in a one-on-one situation with Riley supporting him, the push on Riley in the back could have given Wire fans a legitimate shout for "taking the man off the ball".

All of you claiming this was a deliberate obstruction are living in cloud cuckoo land and/or simply wish that it had been an obstruction.

Also - it seems odd to me that this non-incident has sparked so much discussion when Riley's try was a clear forward pass and should have been chalked off. Maybe RL fans give Eddie Hemmings' views more credence than they dare admit to