Obstruction is a joke at present...how many penalties were there in total last night 4 or 5? Yet none of them appeared to involve a defender actually being blocked.

No point blaming Leeds coaching, every team is getting pinged.

Equally cas just had a try disallowed against Wigan that would have been fine in the past.

Becoming a joke now isn't it?

Its not as exciting as knee jerking on here but Leeds are going through a patch of poor form (especially some key players like sir kev)...the reality is we're neither as bad as we currently appear nor as good as we were at the start of the season.

At least unlike some previous seasons our defence seems to be keeping us in games when we're poor

Why are refs refering every try to look for an obstruction...the cas try that was given never even looked like a hint of an obstruction yet they referred it to try and find one?

Absolutely !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is bluddy farcical now...making a mockery of the game. Sutcliffe scored last night and Dorn just scored right now.

Something needs to be done ....

Everyone is frustrated including most of the players. Something else annoying me is refs increasing inability to award a try without going to video ref

The Dorn one was an easy no try decision. A blatant obstruction by the Cas dummy runner (Hauraki?). He was in front of the ball and interfered with play by blocking the run of a defender to the ball carrier.
Had the dummy runner ran at the opposite shoulder of the defender it'd have been fine and given as a try.

It's very easy not to concede obstruction penalties.

The interpretation at the moment is pretty clear. If you have the ball in your possession and you come around the back of one of your own players, it's obstruction whether a tackler is impeded or not.

It's farcical, but it is what it is and was perfectly applied in relation to Sutcliffe's no try last night.

The problem is that it isn't the interpretation we necessarily started the season with, which gave referees and VRs a lot more freedom to decide whether a defender had been obstructed or not.

In some ways, the players have brought this on themselves with their constant appealing after every try scored with a dummy runner involved. Shenton in the Leeds game for example, who complained after at least two of Leeds tries that he had been obstructed when he hadn't.

Everyone now knows what the interpretation is. It needs players to be smart enough to adapt to it.

It's a joke. Sides get away with most of these "obstructions" unless they're unfortunate enough to score.

It would seem to be that simple but the rules judgements to be evolving as the season is progressing.

I would say that the interpretation on-field doesn't take into account how far away the player is that you run behind. In the case of Sutcliffe's try Bailey was yards away from him completely out of play. I strongly suspect that if the Suttcliffe try had gone to the VR he would have awarded the try. The VR's seem to be actually looking for obstruction or sticking riggidly to the rule that passing behind a player in motion is okay, running past him and passing is not. But in most of those cases the player "obstructing" is a dummy runner in the attacking line and does get in the way to some degree.
As for Shenton's complaints - both were looked at and rightly declined by the video ref.

It's a shame, because I was impressed early season by the reasonable quality of the refereeing and the relatively low penalty counts. Now the men in the middle have a new toy to play with and they are blowing the pea out of their whistles.

Sorry if this has been covered already as I've not read the full thread, but if the obstruction problem that is plaguing our game at the moment is so 'simple to resolve' why is EVERY team getting pinged for it week after week?

Why hasn't EVERY coach managed to coach it out of their respective teams?

I think the problem is far, far deeper than your limited knowledge makes out.

This phrase 'pinged' needs getting rid of, along with 'stanza', 'for mine' and many others.

Probably not in their interests to. Unless a try is scored and a video ref happens to be present, the use of dummy runners remains a potent weapon. And even then, the odd try gets awarded under circumstances very similar to ones where a score was disallowed, often in the same game.

14 years as a graded referee - yup limited knowledge

The only thing that is annoying me with it at the moment is the amount of video ref time spent scrutinising whether, for instance, a player is just very precisely exactly behind a dummy runner when he catches the ball, or that all important 6 inches past the dummy runner (who is 10 yards in front and not really influencing play).

The reason it annoys me is that it has started to feel like we're trying not to give tries, and getting overly pedantic.

And if I think it's too pedantic, something's going wrong.

It's got to the stage where I'd like to see the on-field ref and linesmen deal with obstruction calls, so they make a sure judgement whether the player was impeded. While we're at it the ref and linesman should be able to judge on knock-ons too. Often the video ref comes up with either the wrong decision on a decision of millimetres where the 'scoring' team would have been better off getting tackled on the line and going over next play.

So leave the field of play to the referee and let the video-ref judge on grounding and foot-in-touch, both of which benefit from clear video evidence.

TV matches would instantly be 10 minutes shorter.

Spot on...they are actively looking for technical obstructions rather than (as in the past) first seeing if any player was really obstructed.

Its worth bearing in mind the actual rule in guestion... 15(j) ”deliberately obstructs an opponent who is not in possession” a split second technical overlap such as catching the ball half a stride before fully passing the player in front (as the VR was repeatedly checking on the given Cas try on Saturday) really can't be a deliberate obstruction

... and how many years have you been coaching full time professional RL players?

The way to stop being penalised for this seems quite straight forward to me.
When a dummy runner goes into the defensive line keep going forward beyond the defensive players and then they can't obstruct anyone (unless contact is made on the way through).
What seems to happen is that when the ball carrier goes beyond the dummy runner the dummy runner just stops and that is usually at the defensive line.
The Sutcliffe one was even worse than this, Bailey had gone through the line and then turned around and walked back into the defensive line. If Bailey had just stopped (or continued to go forward) and not walked back towards his own players it wouldn't have been an obstruction.

Yep. That's my view too.

Perhaps. I wouldn't put money on it though.

5 years previously 9 years were Amateurs up to conference premier.
You see the role of Referee is much demonised by the great majority but at the end of the day there are 34 players and 1 official on the pitch (excluding touch judges that are not always present) over 80 minutes and only 1 is absolutely essential hence refereeing includes coaching, whether you like or accept it or not.

or we get high quality refs, or even trust the ones we have to be capable of knowing the difference between obstruction and Sutcliffe situation.

Bailey couldnt disappear, he was yards away from Sutcliffe, it wasn't obstruction. Im not sure having dummy runners just carry on running away from the play like Forrest Gump is going to improve the game all that much.

I think some on here would have loved it if Bailey did disappear


What he should have done is stopped and not headed back towards his own line and therefore into the defensive line.
Dummy runners need to continue for three strides not keep running like Forrest Gump.
Until the obstruction rule is changed or interpreted differently it is up to the players to work out how to not get penalised for it, both the dummy runners and the guy with the ball.
This has nothing to do with decent referees it looks fairly obvious to me how the rule is being interpreted by the refs and it appears to be consistent to.
I believe that the Sutcliffe "incident" was obstruction as it hasn't got anything to do with how close the player with the ball is to the player obstructing it is all to do with how the player without the ball is impacting the defence.
Bailey moved and stood in the defensive line and therefore got in the way of defensive players so it was an obstruction.

i dont agree that the defensive line simply own the space ahead of the ball carrier, they are allowed to impact the defense. In fact thats why Dummy Runners exist. There is a big difference between a blocker creating a gap, and a dummy runner and in 99% of cases it is very obvious.

Bailey didnt move and stand in the defensive line there was barely a line to start with at that point. You say he only has to carry on running for three strides but he was more than three strides ahead of Sutcliffe.

If as you say how far away Bailey was from Sutcliffe was irrelevant. then every dummy runner removes an entire side of the field from play. Bailey was stood near the posts, by what you are saying the Right hand side of that field was out of play for Sutcliffe.

That is sop to poor defence. Sutcliffe scored because of poor defence, there was a huge gaping hole in Leighs defence. They were rewarded with a penalty because earlier Bailey had run a dummy line.

The entire reason for this is that the referees/disciplinary want to say beyond doubt every decision is correct. So they put this stupid checklists in place where referees tick things off to come to a decision, removing all judgement from them.

Thats why we have such a problem with offside, because there are shades of grey, there situations where 50% would say obstruction, 50% wouldnt. To remove that they changed the criteria to judgements of facts and ended up getting decisions for obstruction which meet those criteria but arent what anyone would recognise as obstruction (i.e someone actually being obstructed from play)

Its also how we ended up with the idiotic charge down decision. We know what a charge down is, you know what one is when you see it, i do, fans of the game do, and refs do. 99% of the time there is no problem, Very rarely we get border line decisions. To remove that shade of grey it becomes a judgement of fact. Was the ball rising. If it was, charge down. Whilst this may remove the grey area. It created a stupid situation where a player making no attempt to charge down, is judged to have charged down because the ball is rising.

It is an attempt to remove 'game sense' from the referees and it has given us worse officiating.