it is simple, it isnt obstruction. Rulings for people who know the rules but not the game.

Spot on this. If you need a slow motion replay to see if there was an 'obstruction' it will have had little or no effect on the play. I understand it is the law etc however why has it only been enforced in the last 6 weeks (according to Peacock/Wilkin on TV) and not from the start of the season?

Well yes it is. A Cas player, in front of the ball and so offside, impeded a Wigan defender from getting to the ball carrier.

If that's not obstruction then nothing is. Because that is pretty much the definition of obstruction.



If teams don't want to obstruct it's really quite simple, don't make contact with a defender and don't be in front of the ball. If that means teams have to change how they play then that's just how it is. Dummy runners are supposed to be additional options for the halfback/playmaker, not NFL style blockers.

If it's so simple why is there so much controversy surrounding it?

Correct!!! We've got to the stage where we're agonising, literally, over millimetres one way or the other. The video ref has it's uses but the majority of decisions should be made in real time by the ref in conjunction with the assistants.

The whole point of a dummy runner is to draw a defender. If the defender falls for it, more fool him. If the dummy runner runs in front of a defender who is trying to get to the ball carrier, fair enough, it's obstruction. The current interpretation will do away with dummy runners and make the game more one dimensional.

A dummy runner who is behind the ball, yes.

A dummy runner who is in front of the ball has only 1 duty. To not interfere with play.

The aspect which is most annoying is the fact that, had the game not been in front of the cameras today, all 3 of Castleford's fist half "tries" would have been given.

The micro dissection of the players' running lines, although correct within the laws of the game, just appeared wrong.

The best team won and Castleford's defence was superb.

So you acknowledge it's the law, but because you don't like it, it's stupid.



What criteria would you like? How many metres from the kicker can the charge-down be? A certain part of the body only? Should they be jumping? Eyes open or closed?





I admit it looked a bit odd today but it's been interesting to see so many people with no understanding of the charge-down law spitting their dummies.

I always thought that to perform a 'charge-down' you should, at least, be charging towards the kicker?



Standing there knocking the ball down is surely something different?

Nope. No mention of 'charging'.



[url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/official_laws/2_glossaryCharging Down is blocking the path of the ball with hands, arm or body as it rises from an opponent's kick.[/url

No mention of charging? It's the first word it mentions?



Imagine if the army shouted 'Charge' and the then just stood there.



Maybe the Charge Down should be renamed the Kick Block to truly represent the laws of the game?