Indeed it could.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it becuse it's Wire, IMO it was an obstruction. RL would be dead if we didn't have debates like this.

IMO Riley supported Atkins until the point at which he knew he wasn't needed as Atkins wouldn't be caught and then he eased up. If the Bradford player had of concentrated on Atkins, instead of trying to milk an obstruction penalty which was never there, then he might have forced Atkins to the corner making the conversion more difficult.

We'll have to agree to disagree, then.

I just checked the laws on the rfl website and there are no examples of obstruction given that match the situation from tonight - the only example in the laws that could have applied is one in relation to a player who has passed the ball to a team mate, who then should "give way" to defenders in front of him, but is under no obligation to give way to players coming from behind.

As it is, Riley never had the ball - so the situation tonight isn't covered in the law book by example, so therefore there's no precedent to say that it was an obstruction to the laws of the game, it was simply a player running in support of the ball carrier, and the defender ran towards the supporting player instead of the ball carrier.

Coming from a Bradford fan, no way was it an obstruction.

Riley had the right to be in support for Atkins. He didn't change direction or run into the defender.

Your and Wolf fans thoughts changed on the Gleeson supporting Roberts try at the HJ a couple of years back?
IIRC the board was in meltdown when a supporting Gleeson who was on the shoulder of Roberts "Obstructed" Matt King who was coming from a similar angle to the Bradford chaser last night to tackle Roberts.

Both were tries, but I think giving it the Brain dead Goon stuff is a bit much given some of the Wolf fans you have!

does it matter now we can not change what happened its in the record books now end of lets get on with the sport we love

Obstruction is about an attacking player reaching the defensive line before the ball carrier. IMO once the line has been broken the defending team can't expect to benefit from attacking players getting in their way if they are behind the ball carrier.

NFL style blocking is about preventing the defence from reaching the ball carrier rather than supporting the ball carrier, which is what Riley was doing and is a fundamental part of either code of rugby.

Not very good at this rugby league lark are you?

Has anyone spotted the re-occurring theme yet?

Specsavers not doing a great deal of business over Wigan way?

I've been biting me tongue on the red card thread, with nhow concerned and outraged enicomb is, especially since he's done nothing but run wire fans into the ground over the last 3 years. Hence his attack on the millions and millions of wire fans defending bridge. When really last night I saw about3 of them reply on that thread.

Anything to get a dig in

A similar thing happened with Hall against Castleford with the Griffen break away try. Hall has to run round a Castleford player to begin chasing Griffen, although he is pretty far from him at that stage anyway. As for last nights, definite try, Riley can slow down if he want, he hasn't moved from his original line and it just happened a Bradford players line was moving into Riley's, not his fault.

The Bradford player was knackered and just pushed at Riley to see if he could get a decision. If he was trying to milk a penalty he should at least clattered Riley

Imagine if he had been penalised, you would be stating that teams are not allowed to support breaks. It's a complete non issue.

Danny Orr and that was a blatant obstruction but no one mentione it.

F all wrong with Rileys though

Nothing wrong with the try,mind you a certain austrailia try v gb at old trafford and a certain big mal blocked off gibsons tackle at the death of the game




ooooh dare I type a link in

www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cH92KJExl8 sod it,enjoy the game

www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cH92KJExl8 sod it,enjoy the game

nothing wrong with it

he stays on the same line (which if it was a kick they can do and use the soulder that no one moans about)
he is behind the player with the ball therefore not being used as a sheild.
you could interperate it as the bradford player pushed riley therefore if atkins hadn't of scored would be a penalty to wire.

if you seriously think that wasnt a try go read the rule book.

Anybody that thinks that Atkins try should have been disallowed for obstruction should not be watching Rugby League. Go and watch tiddlywinks instead. And that goes for those pillocks Eddie and Stevo as well!!!!

That makes no sense at all

Even Benny's mum hates Benny.

Just watched the SL round-up programme on Sky and noticed that Danny Orr did exactly the same type of run 'in support' of Griffin's break-away try for Cas on Friday night. It could even be argued that Orr did change direction to impede the defender, unlike Riley; there was however no penalty and no outcry.

Looks like the difference was the Bradford players decision to run into Riley to milk the penalty, rather than go after Atkins - he fooled the Sky pundits but thankfully, not the ref. I wonder if Eddie will be issuing an apology to Riley for stridently accusing him of playing outside 'the spirit of the game?'

I think Hemmings should apologise.

If a supporting player is behind the ball he surely has the right to run wherever he likes, at whatever speed he likes, even to stop dead if he wants too to get ready for the next play if there is one.

I don't think it is possible to obstruct a defender who is running back towards his own line AND behind the ball, except for pulling back.