You seem to be suggesting an even more ridiculous permutation of the obstruction rule than we're already subjected to; not only should the ref make a judgement about an attacker running behind his own player to create an advantage, but he should also make a subjective call about whether the impeded defender *could* have tackled the onrushing attacker had he not been impeded?

Meanwhile, it was still a try and the Brothers Sutton and their employers are still cheats.

International rugby league is over after last weekend as far as I am concerned get the lads home and let's get on with superleague

lol

Told you

There are plenty of people saying England did not get a penalty in the 2nd half. Didn't Inglis have try chalked off for obstruction?

The referee didn't give England a penalty in the second half.

Didn't Inglis have a try chalked off for obstruction in the 2nd half?

So the VR gave the penalty then, not the referee.

The referee didn't give that penalty.

But other than the VR giving a clear obstruction, England didn't get a penalty in the second half.

So England got a penalty in the second half then.

Yes, a single penalty. For Obstruction.

So when people state the pen count in the second half was 5-0 they are mistaken.