Probably not in their interests to. Unless a try is scored and a video ref happens to be present, the use of dummy runners remains a potent weapon. And even then, the odd try gets awarded under circumstances very similar to ones where a score was disallowed, often in the same game.

14 years as a graded referee - yup limited knowledge

The only thing that is annoying me with it at the moment is the amount of video ref time spent scrutinising whether, for instance, a player is just very precisely exactly behind a dummy runner when he catches the ball, or that all important 6 inches past the dummy runner (who is 10 yards in front and not really influencing play).

The reason it annoys me is that it has started to feel like we're trying not to give tries, and getting overly pedantic.

And if I think it's too pedantic, something's going wrong.

It's got to the stage where I'd like to see the on-field ref and linesmen deal with obstruction calls, so they make a sure judgement whether the player was impeded. While we're at it the ref and linesman should be able to judge on knock-ons too. Often the video ref comes up with either the wrong decision on a decision of millimetres where the 'scoring' team would have been better off getting tackled on the line and going over next play.

So leave the field of play to the referee and let the video-ref judge on grounding and foot-in-touch, both of which benefit from clear video evidence.

TV matches would instantly be 10 minutes shorter.

Spot on...they are actively looking for technical obstructions rather than (as in the past) first seeing if any player was really obstructed.

Its worth bearing in mind the actual rule in guestion... 15(j) ”deliberately obstructs an opponent who is not in possession” a split second technical overlap such as catching the ball half a stride before fully passing the player in front (as the VR was repeatedly checking on the given Cas try on Saturday) really can't be a deliberate obstruction

... and how many years have you been coaching full time professional RL players?

The way to stop being penalised for this seems quite straight forward to me.
When a dummy runner goes into the defensive line keep going forward beyond the defensive players and then they can't obstruct anyone (unless contact is made on the way through).
What seems to happen is that when the ball carrier goes beyond the dummy runner the dummy runner just stops and that is usually at the defensive line.
The Sutcliffe one was even worse than this, Bailey had gone through the line and then turned around and walked back into the defensive line. If Bailey had just stopped (or continued to go forward) and not walked back towards his own players it wouldn't have been an obstruction.

Yep. That's my view too.

Perhaps. I wouldn't put money on it though.

5 years previously 9 years were Amateurs up to conference premier.
You see the role of Referee is much demonised by the great majority but at the end of the day there are 34 players and 1 official on the pitch (excluding touch judges that are not always present) over 80 minutes and only 1 is absolutely essential hence refereeing includes coaching, whether you like or accept it or not.

or we get high quality refs, or even trust the ones we have to be capable of knowing the difference between obstruction and Sutcliffe situation.

Bailey couldnt disappear, he was yards away from Sutcliffe, it wasn't obstruction. Im not sure having dummy runners just carry on running away from the play like Forrest Gump is going to improve the game all that much.

I think some on here would have loved it if Bailey did disappear


What he should have done is stopped and not headed back towards his own line and therefore into the defensive line.
Dummy runners need to continue for three strides not keep running like Forrest Gump.
Until the obstruction rule is changed or interpreted differently it is up to the players to work out how to not get penalised for it, both the dummy runners and the guy with the ball.
This has nothing to do with decent referees it looks fairly obvious to me how the rule is being interpreted by the refs and it appears to be consistent to.
I believe that the Sutcliffe "incident" was obstruction as it hasn't got anything to do with how close the player with the ball is to the player obstructing it is all to do with how the player without the ball is impacting the defence.
Bailey moved and stood in the defensive line and therefore got in the way of defensive players so it was an obstruction.