What's everyone's thoughts on how strict it is this season??

Gauranteed if this game was not on sky all 3 of them tries would have been given meaning Wigan would have lead at half time.

First 2 tries should have been given IMO. Obstruction is secondary to a what is a very poor game.

The fact they are scrutinising it frame by frame goes to show how ridiculous it is becoming.

I agree with it and wish they'd be stricter on obstruction. I find most of those type tries (a lead runner with a pass out the back) as fairly boring and not that skillful. As often the lead runners job IS to either obstruct or cause a dent/get in the way of the defensive line.

It's very easy not to obstruct. Don't put an attacker in front of the ball.

All the decisions were correct.

In the first decision the wigan player was stopped from sliding across. In the other 2 the ball wasn't vaught on the outside shoulder of the dummy runner which rendered them obstruction.

There hasn't been a problem with it at all this season. What's happened is wigan use sh*T loads of dummy runners and we have a game involving wigan, and a team coached by former wigan assistant iestyn harris with a bunch of former wigan players. They are getting their timing wrong, and we've had 3 chalked off.

Whoopdy doo.

Eddie f*cking hemmings questions and then we have lemmings on here follow suit.

Its giving thaler plenty of chances to bully ganson.

We have a thread like this every single bloody week because it happens so much.

The current obstruction ruling awards poor defence. The attack in rugby league is going to be muted (and not the commentary, for once) if we don't be careful. Players won't be doing anything that could possibly be interpreted as an obstruction - it's going to be boring.

Allowing those tries would reward poor attack. Using blockers is not good rugby league attack. It's incredibly easy not to obstruct in RL.

All correct calls. As an attacking side there are two things you have to do. Firstly the runner has to catch the ball on the outside shoulder and secondly the drummer runner has to run to the inside shoulder of the defender there by not denying him an opportunity to slide. In all three cases the drummer runner did not run to the inside shoulder of the defender and therefore obstructed him.

Now if there'd been a drummer runner I'd have allowed the tries due to ingenuity and entertainment value.

The rules are essentially simple when they are layed out, and the refs have a strict set of criteria to follow. We have consistency in the rulings now, a few years ago it was all over the joint.

The problems is eddie hemmings is completly cluelss about the rules and that filters down to many watching fans.

Bentham and his assistants are completely spineless.

And then they allow the most blatant obstruction yet!

Just embarrassing now.

Yeah no attempt to play the ball and a nfl linebacker block.
Then the video ref when a player is a good metre from touch. It's a joke totally frustrating for all fans on TV and at the game

That's Predictive text for you

I don't have a problem with the video ref chalking off tries, that is on of the things that you get with the system. My issue is in obstruction calls being made in the middle of the field where the player who runs behind is so far away that the obstructing player does no such thing. Next it will be the full back penalised because he crosses behind a player 40 yards ahead.
It is typical of the Rugby League to highlight on issue and make it the focus of the game and then in a few weeks time forget about it.

I don't see a story here, unless it is the Sky commentators trying to whip one up.

The decisions for all the disallowed tries were spot on, the rule is simple so that most of us can instinctively tell what was an obstruction, and Bentham clearly would have given them as obstructions as he saw them all, though rightly in a TV game let the VR check it.

What do people find hard about it? The man who goes through is offside. It is up to him not to get in the way. If he causes an obstruction, then an obstruction it is. I like my NFL, but I don't want blockers in RL.

In each of those cases it would have been easy for the penalised player NOT to obstruct, and the rules are being applied consistently.

This. The problem was the players and their timing, not the rules or the enforcement.

I think the VR should start using on screen graphics for obstructions like they do for offside. Show the line of play downfield from the ball carrier to the try line. If the line passes through a dummy runner and a defender, highlight the dummy runner in red to show that he is obstructing the defender stood behind him. Maybe then the Sky team will stop whipping up a frenzy amongst fans who can't spot an obstruction?

One of the biggest problems is the commentators don't seem to understand the interpretation, same as Stevo's "momentum rule". It's pretty simple. Someone needs to explain it to the properly so their misunderstandings are not influencing listening fans.

I understand if people disagree with the interpretation but that debate shouldn't be had during commentary.

The rules on obstruction are fine. There's already less variety in attacking moves than there used to be. Don't make running essentially the same move every time too easy.

Indeed. Sky's commentary is awful and getting worse. Adds nothing to the game, just awkwardly forced 'debate' and heaven-help-us 'humorous bickering'. Cringeworthy stuff. Say what you like about Union, at least their commentary usually adds something intelligent.

The use of dummy runners is taking away the need of any team to break a defensive line with the use of skill.

It's a non-story, created by Eddie and his total failure to understand the finer points of the game.

Wigan use that play all the time - on this occasion, their less experienced players got the timing wrong and as such, were guilty of obstruction; the end.