The problem with the current obstruction rule is the same problem with a fair few of our rules now and it seems almost as if we have interpretations written now to protect the Refs rather than actually get the right decision.

There is a checklist of things the refs go through for something like obstruction, was the ball caught on the outside of the dummy runner, was the dummy runner in the defensive line etc etc, the problem is that defining it so tightly and going through this checklist ignores the ultimate actually question, did the dummy runner obstruct the tackler/prospective tackler, so we end up with judgements which while largely consistent, aren't judgements of actual obstructions.

To paraphrase Brian McDermott, we get decisions by people who understand the rules but don't understand the game.

The obstruction rule should be the simplest and easiest to judge, did, in the refs opinion, the dummy runner obstruct a defender.

The only problem with it for me is the frustration of having to watch the VR twiddle his finger for 2 mins every time, knowing that 9/10 times the try would be given if there was no cameras...

I agree that the rule is correct but I'd rather watch rugby than watch two guys with headphones and a giant telly watching rugby.

The use of dummy runner on its own is a skill.

I understand what you're saying however the biggest criticism aimed at officials is the lack of consistency. Many recent rule changes (or rather interpretations) have tried to simplify the rules and base them on set criteria rather than opinion.

They should simply draw a line from ball carrier to defender in the direction of play. The only checklist you need then is: is there a dummy runner in between?

Well, they've been disallowing tries all year for obstruction then the ref obstructs a defender and they allow the try.

Both Cummings and Silverwood were saying that he had to stand somewhere, well er yes but not in the middle of the defensive line you numpty!

Most blatant obstruction all night.

Silverwood needs to be better than that. I know he has to be somewhere and you have to give St Helens some credit for using him, a good old fashioned tactic. But Silverwood's positioning was poor to say the least.

The video referee should be for offside and grounding decisions

It should be the onfield referee who decides the rest

Why? The VR decreases the likelihood of incorrect calls, and that's a good thing, surely.

I agree. Sky games are just becoming a farce now.

Incident last night: makinson high tackle on Grix and Walsh scores. Why does silverwood let this go on and go to the screen? Talk about being indecisive.

He allows it to go on because he has the option to have it reviewed. If the tackle is legit, the try stands; if it isn't, it doesn't. I'm not seeing the issue.

The problem is on a TV game it will get checked everytime yet on a Sunday afternoon it will be a try all day long. We either need to change the ruling or have video refs at every game, it's becoming a joke.

Why is it "a joke"? I don't see the slightest thing wrong in the example given. Didn't detract from the game and got the decision spot on, what's not to like?

Apparently the more we can force the refs to guess and make on the spot decisions the better.

Seems simple to me. If someone receives a ball when he is still on the inside of a dummy runner, he is effectively running behind him.

The attacking plays are at fault. They want to run it so close so that the dummy runner is still a distraction. Tough if you keep getting it wrong. Secondly, stop coming to a halt when you reach the defensive line. If most of them kept up their run and carried on through, there would be no chance of a collision. The duty of the dummy runner is to avoid a defending player.

It really is that simple, but it only goes to show the effect the Sky clowns have on viewers! How many times in one game do they claim it's "confusing" or mention the dreaded word "interpretation"? Next thing you have threads popping up saying how the obstruction rule is a joke and needs to be changed.

So after a downtown kick the winger crosses behind the full back who passes to him as he does so, the nearest defender is 40 metres away is that obstruction?

The answer of course is no because no defender has been impeded by the crossing of the two players, so what we're arguing about is not that crossing is an automatic penalty but whether that crossing has detrimentally affected the defence.

Some of the tries disallowed this season have been done so even though no defender was impeded but the ball has been caught behind the decoy/lead runner.

Without doubt current interpretation is stifling attacking play

Here's my last post from the last time we had a thread on this:

FWIW the current interpretation of obstruction rewards bad defensive reads and poor tacklers.

As a defender all you have to do is run into an attacker and then wave your arms about even if you had no chance of tackling the man with the ball.

No try has been chalked off because of crossing 40 metres away, and I'd wager that none have been chalked off when no obstruction has taken place.

This post highlights the problem: fans not knowing the laws of the game. You can wave your arms about till they fall off but if the ball was caught on the outside shoulder it was your bad defensive read, not an obstruction.

If you read through my whole post you'll see that we're in agreement, I think!
Well at least with the first part of your post, the second part I think you're wrong, tries have been disallowed when no defenders been obstructed.

The act of crossing on its own is IMO not sufficient to draw a penalty, distance and more importantly impediment have to be taken into account

They are! Like I said, obstruction is never given when the crossing occurs way down field, it's only ever given in close quarters when an attacker is placed between ball carrier and defender.

It's a joke because it only comes into play on televised matches. Quite simple really. It it was scrutinised as heavily in every single match then it wouldn't be as much of a problem. Not hard to understand that