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

Yet we've seen tries disallowed when the sweep runner is way in front of the impeded defender who has no chance of getting to him. So even in some close quarter events the distance can be mitigating yet the try gets chalked off anyway.

The clue you gave yourself but failed to notice is "IMPEDED" defender. If you impede a defender then (barring an advantage being played) you concede a penalty. Whether he would have made the tackle is irrelevant, it is not just that immediate particular tackle, it is a deliberate and offside disruption of the defence. The penalty will also be given regardless of whether a try follows. It would be the same coming away from his own line.

It is the job of the dummy runner not to impede or obstruct the defence and it is up to the ball carrier not to run behind his own man,

Except that wasn't the rule for obstruction which needed a would be tackler to be obstructed. Nobody owns the space, players can be wherever they want, you just can't move to block a would be tackler.

Danny McGuire at MM last year against Wigan, he ran behind a man nowhere near the defensive line, no-one was impeded in anyway, there was no obstruction in the sense someone was obstructed.

NOW I'll join the obstruction criticism bandwagon.

Since when was obstruction multidirectional? Surely if a defender rushes out the line, as Huddersfield just did, and end up in the attacking line, they cannot claim to be obstructed by the attacking players who are stood [uto the side[/i of them?!

Pathetic rule. Garbage defence being let off by stupid "obstruction" calls.

Yes but that was against Wigan.

We all know the 11th commandment - Thou shalt not give a 50/50 video ref decision against wigan.

Translation: Wiggin had a try decision go against them.

You forgot the bylaw whereby invisible knock ons can be given against them though.

Yeah I forgot that one.