I think obstruction in its present form is a symptom of the modern coaching obsession with "flat attack " . Get away from "flat attack" & many obstructions would not happen.

It will change again but by then there will be another rule that they will have been told to enforce more than others, yet by round 5 or 6, it will have been forgotten about (just like enforcing offside).

obstruction needs to stay, however i dont particularly care for the current interpretation which is ruining games lately.

I think this inside outside shoulder rubbish is a misnomer, makes no difference for me.

If the dummy runner runs or plows into a defender, it should be a penalty.Whether the ball carrier/receiver is stood 1 metre or 10 back, if the defensive line is affected by someone running into a defender it gets penalised.

now if a defender has made the choice to go for a dummy runner, ie defensive line is following attack to the left and then a defender checks and goes completely the wrong way (and its obvious) then thats tough .

Dummy runners who run through, dont make contact, but then stand in the defensive line side by side with defenders should be penalised as well,


Just to note, i dont think there was one single call for obstruction yesterday.

I'd agree with this, and I think you're right, there weren't any penalties for obstruction yesterday. Mind you, at the end of the game I did wonder how many tries would have gone to the screen had it been on TV.

And how much more freely does the game flow without the option of going to the screen ?

Quite simple: if the attacker gains an advantage via the runner it is obstruction.

Yes. On Thursday in the HKR v Hudds game there was a penalty given for obstruction when nobody was actually obstructed.

Yes to the letter of the law it was the correct decision, but it looked a real poor call as I don't believe there was any real advantage gained by the attackers. By that I mean I don't believe it would have saved the try if the dummy runner wasn't there, as Luke Robinson had read the play and was in no way impeded in my opinion.

The rule needs to be looked at I think.

Totally agree. A modicum of common-sense needs to be applied and that is part of what is missing at the moment. There have to be rules in life, but governments, agencies, authorities and referees can still use a bit of rational thinking; if we applied every rule to the letter every team would be getting penalised for incorrect play-the-balls every tackle, they'd have a field day with scrums and don't get me started on the momentum rule.

RL is an entertainment, first and foremost, not an officiating exam.

There have always been dummy runners but defenders nowadays, instead of trying to defeat the attacking ploy legitimately, run lines that mean they appear to be obstructed.A nightmare for the officials.
Oh for the days you mention of sidesteps, changes of pace and other, more subtle attacking methods. but I fear they have gone forever. This is partially due to coaching and 'game plans' but the real reason is the sheer athleticism of the modern players where props, who used to be big and ponderous and designed for wallowing in mud, can now chase and catch backs. There is no longer the space for the subtle arts and the game, as a spectacle and entertainment, is much the poorer for it where so much today depends on kicking. Personally I would abolish forty twenties altogether.

Surely the whole point of dummy running is to distract the defender and thereby gain an advantage. The varying, often contradictory, suggestions on this thread illustrate how complicated the obstruction rule is to enforce in these circumstances but I would not like to see dummy running outlawed as, done properly, it is a masterclass in timing and precision passing.