The Rugby League Obstruction Rule should not be canned

The obstruction rule has caused a ton of angst in the NRL this year – there have been plenty of tries disallowed that should have been awarded.

But changing the rule is avoiding the issue. The issue is two fold. Players are using it to milk penalties and referees are not interpreting the rule correctly.

I actually think it is a good rule. I don’t know the exact wording, but I agree that ‘decoy runners should not be allowed to interfere with the defensive line’. Decoy runners are all well and good, but if they do prevent tackles being made, then there is an issue.

For the referee, the tricky part comes when deciding whether or not the defensive line was indeed interfered with. Actually, it’s not that tricky, but it’s difficult to establish any sort of benchmark, because each case is unique. It comes down to the interpretation of the video referee.

Aside from the two disallowed tries, there was one more terrible call against the Warriors when they took on the Rabbitohs. It was when the Warriors were on attack. Rovelli had the ball, got tackled near the try line, but flicked the ball out directly behind himself. Todd Byrne picked up the ball, but of course there were about 3 players, including Rovelli about three metres ahead of him. As soon as he moved, the ref called obstruction . . . the thing is though, that when Byrne got the ball, all the team mates were already ahead of him, there was nothing he could do. Based on this interpretation, Grant Rovelli should have held the ball instead of keeping it alive ☹

Oh, and one more thing . . . The fact that these decisions only go to the video referee when a try is (or is not) scored, and not on previous plays is clearly inconsistent. However, it’s the same for other rules. For example, if the referee misses a forward pass, then three plays later a try is scored, the video referee cannot go back and rule a forward pass. This is a separate issue that needs to be addressed somehow.