Quote ="The Speculator"Agreed. Not allowing obstruction checks by the video ref would be a big improvement, I think. Of course, the flip-side would be that some tries will then be scored that leave fans up in arms, shouting that they should have been ruled out for obstruction (and some teams specialising in the dark arts will doubtless run more deliberate obstruction plays to see what they can get away with). Ultimately though, it would be up to the on-field refs to be sharp enough to call any obstructions correctly. Are they sharp enough? That's a different debate!'"
i know it was an issue year before last, it was daft, i've no problem them checking it, but i'd like a very clear set of guidelines of what constitutes obstruction.
They make it up at the moment, supposedly its was the defender impeded from getting to the ball carrier, subsets to that is, did the dummy runner come through on the outside shoulder/does he stay in the line obstructing, did the ball receiver (off a pass) receive it wider than the dummy runner and also how far back is the ball carrier from the 'obstructed' defender.
I think thats it, in a nutshell, however they don't seem to apply most of that, as all a defender has to to is walk into a dummy runner and throw his arms up(also preventing him from running through cleanly).
i'd like there to be more emphasis on did the defenders make a bad read, if you've adjusted and come in, if you've put your hands out/on to the dummy runner, you've made a misread. if that leaves a gap on your outside thats not obstruction, especially if the ball has been passed and is ten metres back.
Didn't we have one chalked off last week for defender being impeded? who still got past the dummy runner and almost tackled the ball carrier?