stood still with his hands on his head after making a dummy run as instructed by the RFL to signal to the referee he isnt attempting to interfere with play?

Do we want to have players ahead of the ball carrier parking themselves in the defensive line while a team-mate crosses behind?

It didn't appear a planned move. Clarkson throws the anchor out and raises his arms - he should have run through the line, McGuire appeared distracted and dummied the pass before reluctantly running behind his team-mate, surely expecting the whistle to go at that moment but hoping it wouldn't. Had McGuire not dummied the pass to McShane just at the point he was about to cross/crossing (it was tight) behind Clarkson Leeds might have gotten away with it.

We all know we won't have to wait long before one of these 'obstructions' will be ignored and we'll think back to Sunday but for me it was a clear enough decision for the referee and video referee to make and the correct call - although obviously like Ian Smith I don't understand the game.

They made conflicting decisions, either one of them doesn’t understand the game, or there isn’t a hard and fast ‘obstruction’ like there isn’t a hard and fast slowing the ptb, and it is down to the referees opinion.

The rules are clear that obstruction is when an attacking player (without the ball) deliberately puts himself in an obstructing position.
The rule also specifically (yes, specifically) state that the player with ball can run through a ruck of his own players if he likes.
So-called "crossing" in itself is not illegal, it's only illegal when the player without the ball puts himself into an obstructing position.
Where the player with the ball runs behind a stationary attacking player who just happens to be there, it's legal.

In this instance, not only was that the case but, in addition, no-one was obstructed, the defender continued to track McGuire perfectly well.
Plus the supposed obstructer complied with the rules, stood still and signalled his null position in the approved manner

My verdict was was a definite T.R.Y.
But hey-ho, you win some, you lose some.

TBH it shouldn't matter whether a player runs or passes it behind the player IMO. The first gets penalised usually) the second doesn't, the second can be much more blatant than the first and still be deemed legal.

I have never been comfortable with the way obstruction is judged. In my view if a defender has been physically impeded so that it gives an advantage to the attacking side then is should be penalised. Too many of the planned dummy runner moves are allowed yet involve players running in front of the ball carrier deliberately putting themselves in an offside position before the ball is passed. Its been getting too much like American football.

In my playing days the dummy runner had to keep onside so that he could distract the defence but not obstruct it. This meant the ball carrier was still just in front of the dummy runner yet could pass to a player (or line of players) who were deeper.

Too much of the play these days is flat and IMO we would see much better back play if we occassionally passed deeper to a line of backs taking the ball at full pace. Then you might see more classy stuff from the centres and some overlaps created for the wingers.

This.

The Obstruction ruling is regarding obstruction. If there is no obstruction then there is no offence no matter where you stand or run. For me it's another confusing and constantly changeable "interpretation" of one of the laws of the game. You used to have to really make an effort to deliberately obstruct a defender - in reality you had to take them out of the game deliberately.

And as for "standing in the defensive line" , well if you apply this "interpretation" litteraly then every single try scored by someone taking the ball from dummy half and diving over from a PTB on the line should be dissalowed as the tackled player playing the ball is stood directly in the middle of the defensive line and almost always obstructs a tackler.

Totally agree DHM/EL Barbudo.

It was interesting listening to Stuart Cummings during the match.
When the incident went to the VR Cummings explained the wording of the rules and called no try before it came on the screen.
Hansen couldn't attempt a tackle on McGuire as Clarkson was between him and the ball carrier and preventing him. That's obstruction.

Leeds may benefit from that, we have some decent strike weapons outside and it may be a relief to our ball carriers to receive floaters rather than the 100mph bullet flat passes we can't help but produce.

Too simplistic to suggest there was a conflict of opinion given the differing levels of information offered up to each.

One ruled play on initially with an imperfect view at speed and in live play but still suspected there may have been an issue - why else did he refer it upstairs?

The other with the benefit of technology made the correct ruling in line with current interpretations.

Stop talking sense, it's not what forums are for.

The exact same reasoning was used for the Sam Powell no try.
Both decisions were correct.

Clear obstruction which was missed by the on field ref...

So many threads about these instances in all other games on the Leeds board, its a wonder you have time to discuss anything else... Good to see you are concerned about the state of refereeing in SL...

Or is it just when it affects Leeds...

Toodle pip..