I'm wondering what was a Rhinos perspective of Josh Charnleys try that was chalked off for obstruction on Saturday night is. My thoughtswere that the runner was running at the gap and JJB moved towards him. And the try should have been given.

A try all day long. Ball had been passed before contact was made. This area is so inconsistent and its a toss of a coin if you get the decision

For me, that should always be a try. JJB would never have got over anyway, so it hardly stopped him. However, the exact same thing is dissallowed every week, so it had to be dissallowed.

They need to look at this rule properly so they are not dissallowing this sort of try every week. Obstruction should only be if you stop someone from getting to a player. If they had no chance regardless then it should be taken into account.

TRY

Looked fine to me on replays.

Like others, my main problem is consistency. If that sort of move was always ruled out I don't think people would mind so much, but probably 6 out of 10 would be given and 4 ruled out. Easy to see why coaches and players get frustrated.

I thought it was harsh to rule it out. I'd have been pretty unhappy if it was one of ours that had been chalked off like that.

It was a try. But as soon as it 'went upstairs' once contact had been made with JJB you knew it was not going to be given.

Consistent logic needs to be implemented over illogical letter of the law.

Definite try, this obstruction thing is getting stupid. Unless it blocks the tackler then can't see the problem

Exactly they are called 'dummy runs'. Big part of the attacking set-up, which defenders get drawn out etc. Massive part of the deceit side of the game.

Try for me but like others say above once contact was made it was never gonna be given yet we see "worse" given and this is one of the most inconsistent rules in the game.

A try.
It's a lottery whether they are given or not.
Cummins needs to give definitive guidance on this.

A player was taken out without the ball, however it did not effect the try being scored. But then again you could argue whether JJB was illegally taken out or if they just collided and he came of worse. So I dunno

Is that how you put your stats together?

JJB was taken out illegally, therefore regardless of wether he would have made the tackle or not (My veiw is he would have got no where near) the video ref made the correct call as a foul had been committed.

It should only be obstruction if the ball carrier runs through the "hole" created by the dummy runner, he didn't, so try every time on that score.

However, you cannot take a player out without the ball regardless of the situation, so penalty defence for that offence, not obstruction, was the correct call.