Am I right in thinking that if for instance the onfield ref goes to the VR and says look at the grounding but during that play another infringement occurs such as a knock on at the ptb that the on ref either missed or didn't think it was. Can the VR say it is a no try scrum defence?

If so then the NRL version should be best used especially as not every game has a VR over here.

Ok so the answer is, no you can't tell me where it says that the ball carrier can't run behind one of his own players. Thanks.

Thank God you're here. For 30 years I've been watching referees blow up for this offence.

Quick, tweet @RFLReferees and let them know they've been wrong all along.

I've been watching nearly twice as long and I think that the interpretation of this offence has changed in, possibly, the last ten years. But, as you probably can't tell me what the offence actually was either (please don't say McGuire ran behind his own player) I think I've made my point and I'll bow out. Thanks for your contribution.

It has? Any evidence to back that up or just your hazy recollections?


The offence was obstruction. That's what Silverwood asked for and what was given.

As Cummings explained at the time, "what we're looking for is: is the player in the defensive line (yes), did he run behind him (yes), is it close proximity (yes), does it have an effect on the man in front of him (yes - Hansen)"

He then goes on to say, "for me it's quite simple, he's run behind his own man in the defensive line and therefore it should be a penalty." If the dummy runner had carried on through the defensive line and out of the way it wouldn't have been an offence.

Silverwood, via the @RFLReferees twitter, has said in response to queries on the decision: "Rules state you can’t run behind your own man in close proximity to the defensive line which is what happened."

As I originally said, I thought it was a minor offence and a harsh call - but the correct call. A minor obstruction is still an obstruction, just as a minor knock-on is still a knock-on.

Happy to clear that up for you. Thanks for your contribution.

The Leeds player was not interfering with the play, McGuire was hard done by IMO. I wonder if the previous day had made the VR over cautious. Shaun Wane is a lot 'harder' than Sandercock !!!!

...but would you say he was 'harder' than Brian McDermott?

Correct. Like the Langley incident, where the refs feed on Twitter confirmed that the penalty was given not under the laws of the game, but on the basis of a "Policy", the laws (or at least a Note to Law 15) plainlky state that


So the rule states that he can dodge behind a whole ruck of his own players, or even bore his way through them, but we all know that the reality is the exact opposite, if the player in possession dodges behind even one of his own players, a pretty much automatic penalty will be given, in direct conflict with the laws.

Maybe not, he was a Royal Marine and as an ex-matelot I know not to mix it up with the 'green death', unless your pi$$ed that is

I said elsewhere that the Widnes defender pretty much ran straight into Gaskell, but he stuck his arm across the body of the defender when they made contact so disallowing it was probably the right decision.

According to the RFL Glossary: "Ruck refers to all players involved in and around the tackle and subsequent play the ball."

Therefore "dodging behind a ruck of his own players" actually means running behind the player who has played the ball and dummy half. It doesn't refer to running behind one of your own players in open play, and certainly not those lingering in the opposition's defensive line.

Sorry but you've cleared up nothing. If Cummings and Silverwood did say those things (and of course my advanced years cast a fog over anything that happened more than five minutes ago) I would ask them the same question, "Which rule states that McGuire can't run behind a team mate?".
And incidentally, the Leeds player ran a legitimate dummy run and raised his hands as soon as possible to show he was no longer involved in the play so, if it were obstruction it should have been classed as accidental - the correct decision for accidental obstruction is to allow play to carry on unless the defender was prevented from making a tackle in which case it should be a scrum. I'm not making this up - it's in the rules!
I personally don't care who wins when Leeds play Wigan, I'd just like the rules to be adhered to consistently. And it would be good if posters on here and referees stopped making them up as they go along.