Surely it needs to be reviewed? Every match there seems to be a dubious call.



The rule puts all the blame on the attack and removes any responsibility from the opposition. It's v.heavily weighted in favour of defence - as if they couldn't have possibly made a bad call and read the game poorly.

I agree with Jon Wells

It's very easy for an attack not to obstruct. Don't get in front of the ball.

If anything I'd take the opposite view in that I think the rules are too lenient on the attack and penalise the defence for having blockers in their way.

That wasn't a dubious call, under the current interpretation it was clearly the correct call.



There is certainly a case (as Wells said) to review the interpretation. However the current system was replacing one purely based on opinion with one much simpler which can only help refs and make it easier for most people to understand. The more complicated it gets the more controversial calls there will be.



All the players and coaches understand the rules, the mistake was the St Helens players who mis timed their run/pass. A second or so later and it would have been fine.

The current "interpretation" is stupid. Some perfectly good tries have been ruled out due to the interpretation - the defenders don't get taken out of the play by the dummy run yet the try is still disallowed because of the runner being on the inside shoulder blah blah blah, it's rubbish.



It should be simple: Is a defender blocked out of the play by a dummy runner (either by standing in the line or running directly into a defender to create the gap...y'know actually obstructing the defensive line)? If the answer is no, it's a try.

I blame the match officials for the players not being to time passes and make dummy runs thus making obstruction happen!

That try from the J Wilkin over the head pass would have been allowed in the NRL. As usual the NRL have it right, J Sharp and R Rimmer should be speaking to T Archer and T Greenberg at least once a week, to talk about the rules, the NRL have it right about the 7 tackles from a 20 metre tap re-start too. And obviously 2 refs, and it infuriated me when Eddie Hemmings quite plainly makes a point of calling the positions scrum half and stand-off. Neither names make sense anymore. Nice to hear J Wells calling it five-eighth on occasions.

Can't see how anyone can have a problem with that decision today. The ball carrier had a man between him and a defender, what's there to argue about?

Cheating pie eaters. We was robbed! Best team lost.

Problem for me is most of those would be given at games where there's no big screen. The video ref is now finding reasons not to give tries, which is just frustrating supporters and players and I think it's a massive shame that we end up talking about these decisions instead of the skill on show.



Not sure what the solution is, because as people have pointed out these decisions are *technically* correct. Perhaps they should reduce the situations that the video ref can look at so the on field ref has to use their eyes instead.

As there wasn't a flippin obstruction. If there's an obstruction then yes, but as I said earlier, in the NRL that would have been allowed, a billion dollar sport which is under constant scrutiny from press and supporters, so what have you got to say about that?

Technically there was an obstruction according to the rules. The interpretation was agreed in a meeting by the Coaches and officials to clear up a grey area. It was agreed that you cannot run behind your own player. As the ball was caught on the inside shoulder the St Helens player then runs behind his teammate. Had the run and pass been timed better then it would have been a try.



I can understand people's frustration with the rule but at least as it is, it is easy to understand and make the right call. It would be more frustrating if it was left to individual opinion and full of inconsistency.