is this obstruction rule now becoming a farce,every time theres a try (especially on tv )teams moan at the ref and he generally goes to the screen..also games are ending 2 hours after the kick off is this really good for the game to have all this controversy...for me its ruining the game

I'll have it ruining the game but it's no different to a knock on or a forward pass for me. It's a rule players know and yet it happens all the time.

It's a farce. Common sense has gone out of the window, and defenders are now getting wise to the pedantic application of the rule book and taking advantage. It's making the game look daft, it's punishing good play and rewarding bad defence and causing unnecessary delay and interruptions.

Referees, SKY and Stuart Ganson need to remember that we had an obstruction rule (and many others) that served their purpose for decades before they started to faff about with them. Those rules were applied by the refs using thought, balance and common sense. They didn't always get it right but it created a beautiful flowing sport and spectacle and the wilful, perversely dogmatic application of the same rules is taking the game backwards.

I'm not sure where I stand with this.
The puritans of us was brought up on a game where obstruction or shepherding were pretty obvious and random.
The new structure of SL have seen a move towards training field techniques and plays that run lines that use shepherding to semi obstruct the defenders observance of a play or physically.

The play has got to a point where referees had to clean this up.

They instructed all clubs prior to the beginning of the season on what teams can do if they chose to run the lines that cause shepherding.
What is allowed and what isn't. Should we blame the refs because they lay down the law as it should be applied or the club for running a play that teases obstruction and gets it slightly wrong?

If they want to enforce the rule, fine but lets take it away from the video ref because at the moment they are meticulously scrutinising plays frame by frame for the slightest hint of contravention of the law, and it's to the detriment of the game. If a decoy runner comes through clatters into a defender, deviates from his run or actively blocks a defender then fine, but all this is the passer on his inside/ouside shoulder is absolute cobblers.

Besides, given the zealous way they are enforcing the rule you now have a situation where half a dozen plays a match are being chalked off in televised games, and being waved on in non-televised ones. If you want to apply the rule, then you need to apply it fairly across the board, which means handing the onus solely to the ref.

I think it's a sign of the lack of quality in SL. It's not that the rule is wrong and needs changing, it's that too many players aren't rugby-intelligent or good enough not to do it. That's why they keep doing it and getting called up for it.

Ref should call it live, if he misses it, try.

Our lad was at a meeting with Ben Thaler yesterday and he was very critical of the directive they got to penalise in this way. All likely to change again for next season.

The interpretations are agreed with coaches prior to the season. Anyway wire were giving away penalties for obstruction long before it became popular!



I know it is fashionable to say that refereeing in Australia is light years ahead (load of tripe) but they have had the exact same problem in recent years. The game needs to decide on an interpretation and stick to that shade of grey.

I don't blame the refs at all. The attacking game has changed so much over the years. Players were never allowed to run in front of the ball like they do now. Sometimes it appears that the only way to create a break is to have waves of dummy runners, running in front of the ball, testing the laws to the limit. Wigan a few years back started the current trend with Thomas Leuluai, Brett Finch and the rest making space for Tomkins etc. Now all the Wigan players are so slick at this play. Other sides copied it and it is no surprise that the recent TV game Wigan v Salford ... brought things to a head. Iestyn Harris had spent hours and hours coaching the ploy at Wigan prior to moving to Salford.

I am concerned that for some teams it seems to be the only way to create space and I think it needs to be challenged before our game becomes like American football. I would hate it if our game starts allowing even more "dummy running obstructors" just because it's fed up of the referees whistle. Those who want the refs. to stop interfering want to be very careful about what they wish for.

+1

I've always thought dummy runners were a form of obstruction...Why not ban them altogether and then perhaps teams will have to think of other means to overcome defences...I've often heard old timers talk of such alien things as dummies....sidesteps...changes of pace...kidology.and all manner and means. It could be more entertaining the the present version of the game of bish bash bosh. Brute force and ignorance.

I think obstruction in its present form is a symptom of the modern coaching obsession with "flat attack " . Get away from "flat attack" & many obstructions would not happen.

It will change again but by then there will be another rule that they will have been told to enforce more than others, yet by round 5 or 6, it will have been forgotten about (just like enforcing offside).

obstruction needs to stay, however i dont particularly care for the current interpretation which is ruining games lately.

I think this inside outside shoulder rubbish is a misnomer, makes no difference for me.

If the dummy runner runs or plows into a defender, it should be a penalty.Whether the ball carrier/receiver is stood 1 metre or 10 back, if the defensive line is affected by someone running into a defender it gets penalised.

now if a defender has made the choice to go for a dummy runner, ie defensive line is following attack to the left and then a defender checks and goes completely the wrong way (and its obvious) then thats tough .

Dummy runners who run through, dont make contact, but then stand in the defensive line side by side with defenders should be penalised as well,


Just to note, i dont think there was one single call for obstruction yesterday.

I'd agree with this, and I think you're right, there weren't any penalties for obstruction yesterday. Mind you, at the end of the game I did wonder how many tries would have gone to the screen had it been on TV.

And how much more freely does the game flow without the option of going to the screen ?

Quite simple: if the attacker gains an advantage via the runner it is obstruction.

Yes. On Thursday in the HKR v Hudds game there was a penalty given for obstruction when nobody was actually obstructed.

Yes to the letter of the law it was the correct decision, but it looked a real poor call as I don't believe there was any real advantage gained by the attackers. By that I mean I don't believe it would have saved the try if the dummy runner wasn't there, as Luke Robinson had read the play and was in no way impeded in my opinion.

The rule needs to be looked at I think.

Totally agree. A modicum of common-sense needs to be applied and that is part of what is missing at the moment. There have to be rules in life, but governments, agencies, authorities and referees can still use a bit of rational thinking; if we applied every rule to the letter every team would be getting penalised for incorrect play-the-balls every tackle, they'd have a field day with scrums and don't get me started on the momentum rule.

RL is an entertainment, first and foremost, not an officiating exam.

There have always been dummy runners but defenders nowadays, instead of trying to defeat the attacking ploy legitimately, run lines that mean they appear to be obstructed.A nightmare for the officials.
Oh for the days you mention of sidesteps, changes of pace and other, more subtle attacking methods. but I fear they have gone forever. This is partially due to coaching and 'game plans' but the real reason is the sheer athleticism of the modern players where props, who used to be big and ponderous and designed for wallowing in mud, can now chase and catch backs. There is no longer the space for the subtle arts and the game, as a spectacle and entertainment, is much the poorer for it where so much today depends on kicking. Personally I would abolish forty twenties altogether.

Surely the whole point of dummy running is to distract the defender and thereby gain an advantage. The varying, often contradictory, suggestions on this thread illustrate how complicated the obstruction rule is to enforce in these circumstances but I would not like to see dummy running outlawed as, done properly, it is a masterclass in timing and precision passing.