Whilst I agree to a point about the difference between tv and non-tv games, I'm not so sure if all the tries would have stood. In TV games refs are deliberately allowing the game to continue because they know there is the video there to refer to. If they didn't have that backup they'd be forced to make an active decision rather than a passive one and on at least some occasions the tries would still be disallowed.

Ok, that's right. So we're all clear now? Let's move on.

Then why did you ask? You asked what the criteria should be I gave my opinion.



Arguing for the sake of arguing.



Instead of actually debating the law all you've come back with is ''that's the law, it's the law, the law is this, that's the law''.



Mind numbing.

Yes, I did ask. But whatever you'd 'like' is indeed irrelevant. The law is what it is, like it or lump it.



Ok, let's look at what you'd 'like': [i"the player to be moving towards the ball carrier either before or after the kick has been made and then a movement of the hands to try and block the kick"[/i. Ok, so let's say a defender is stood stationary in the defensive line. The ball carrier runs to him and kicks from 2 metres away. The defender puts his arms up, blocking the kick, knocking it towards the attacking team's posts. You'd call that a knock-on just because the defender isn't moving towards the ball carrier? Doesn't wash with me. The current rule is correct, even if the application of it looked a bit daft today.



I'd 'like' to see shoulder charges back in the game. It's irrelevant because they're currently illegal.

In both cases, and in the case of Sutcliffe on friday, it was as much the defender making contact with the attacker as the attacker making contact with the defender.



In no case was it a gap created by an obstruction, they were gaps created by poor defence and poor reads. Players can't just disappear, they can't not exist anymore or make themselves ghosts if the defender chooses a line which goes through them, what are they supposed to do?





Its a poor rule which is spoiling the game.

it isnt an offence to be in front of the ball.

I think bringing the video ref in was a great idea initially, to check the groundings or if someone is in touch. But now we are seeing the thing the critics have always said, which I believe has become true only recently: It completely ruins the flow of the game.



Im guessing at this figure but as a conservative guess id say over 50% of tries scored on TV games go to the video ref. Analysing every dummy runner in slow motion from every angle repeatedly. Why is it that when looking at the grounding, its benefit of the doubt to the attacking team. Yet with obstruction, a 50-50 call almost always goes in favour the defensive team.

I too think that the overuse of the VR is spoiling the game - bringing it in to disrepute actually - but, with multiple camera angles and slow motion replays it would a bad move to get rid of it altogether. How about this? The on field ref makes all the decisions but each team can ask for moves leading to tries, allowed or disallowed,to be reviewed by the VR. Each team can have maximum three reviews per game. I'd also allow the ref to refer the VR if unsure how to restart after the ball's gone out of play. Don't know if it would work but It would put the onus back on refs to take responsibility for making decisions and, possibly, cut down on the number of VR calls in a game.

The RFL have sanctioned much more far fetched ideas. I like the idea in principle but Id be a bit worried about it becoming a bit pantomime e.g. last minute try controversially given but the aggrieved team have used their 3 reviews. I just think the system would be the talking point, and take away from the quality on the pitch

They'd definitely have to use their three calls judiciously. In your scenario it just puts the responsibility back on the ref. Perhaps they'd get better!!!!

The Dorn no try was certainly not a case of that. It was a case of a defender having to run around an attacker who was in the defensive line. It made the gap between defenders bigger and Dorn ran through that gap.

That is obstruction.



Tell us, what poor read was on show from the Wigan defender who had to run around Hauraki for the Dorn no try?



What are you on about "if the defender chooses a line"? The line is a direct one between a defender sliding across and the ball carrier, in this case Dorn (or where Dorn will run). There is an attacker in the way of a defender trying to get to the ball carrier. That attacker is offside. It is obstruction. It is effectively a blocker.



As for players making themselves ghosts or disappearing you're just being silly. They have run to that position, no-one has made them do that, it's not like a player who has just played the ball who can't control their immediate position. If they run to that position it is their responsibility to ensure they don't obstruct the defence.



I don't see the rule as spoiling the game, I see it as poor attack.

No one has said it is, so I'm not sure why you've brought that up other than as an attempt to divert the discussion away from its actual point.



Because you well know that whilst it's not an offence (or not one you'll be penalised for) in and of itself to be offside, it is if you interfere with play. Which is what the discussion about, offside players interfering with play.



If an offside defender ran toward the ball carrier and interfered with the attack they'd be penalised. I don't see why offside attackers should be allowed to interfere with the defence and not be penalised, they're not allowed to from a kick.