Obstruction Rule

Last weeks game against the Knights, the Knights second try was scored after a clear Obstruction. The obstruction part is not up for debate, the bunker identified it in their review. The Bunker then went on to state the Obstruction is ok because Dylan had enough time to dust himself off and get ready to make a tackle.Is that right? I thought the Obstruction rule was pretty black and white and once it occurred the play was dead. Does this mean obstruction is now within the rules provided there is a big enough gap between when the obstruction occurs and when the try is scored? How big does the time gap need to be?

You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!

Join 1Eyed Eel

Votes: 0
Email me when people reply –


  • I thought they got that wrong given how black and white they've been this season. Mann initiates contact with the defender, which impedes the side's ability to defend the play. Dunster only comes in because the ball gets outside Dylan Brown and an overlap is created. 

    • Yeah the refs made many glaring errors last round. 

      Really worrying considering we have the same rubbish refs for our game this weekend. 

      They bungled the penalty try according to Knights fans (disagree)

      They bungled the obstruction try according to us (fact) 

      They missed the block play on Moses - no call

      They nearly no called Fergo's crocodile roll injury until he blew up deluxe

      I'm sure there were other calls I'm forgetting

      • The knock on from Knights that went 20 metres forward and Gutho gets tackled and it's play on - took us 2 tackles to get back to where we should have had the ball, absolutely no advantage whatsoever. Fast forward and we knock on and Klein puts scrum down at point of mistake instead of play on 10 metres up field where Ponga gathers the ball - complete inconsistency right there.

  • As much as it pains me to say it, the time has come when we need to make it obvious by falling down with arms flailing by all players in the vicinity. This includes against the Panthers blocking play when Cleary kicks from behind the ruck. They always have 2 players standing next to the play the ball to block markers from racing up and putting pressure on Cleary. In the first set against Penrith, if they have the usual 2 players standing next to the ruck, I would instruct our markers to break quickly, one on either side, and then fall over calling obstruction (by all players) if impeded trying to get to Cleary. Put it on them right from the get go to set the scene for the remainder of the game. I would fall over for every block play and every obstruction as this is the only way to keep them all honest. I am concerned that the guy in the bunker appears to be a life member of the Panthers? Can someone confirm this? He should be immediately swapped out if this is true claiming potential conflict of interest/ not at "arms length" from the decisions. We have had this problem before back in the 1970's with a referree who worked for the sponsors of the opposing team. It is simply not on and the club should make a formal request for a new bunker ref today. 

    • Yep if there is obstruction you are forced to take a dive or the refs won't rule in your favour

      A very sad state of affairs but if that it what it takes for them to notice - then so be it

    • That was inexperience shown by Dyl. Fall over and guarantee a penalty, expecially in a final

      • Not sure there is a guarantee of a penalty though, there's simply way too much inconsistency from the refs and especially the bunker. Imagine taking a dive to try ang get that penalty and they still rule as they did, we'd be blowing up deluxe at Dylan for taking a dive. Simpl thing is for the bunker to get it right every time, they just don't.

  • They screwed us over with that call. It is a black and white decision and it has to be.

  • I think it was Kent who said it should have been a penalty. Brown was moving forward when he was obstructed, he then had to move to his left which gave the player more room to step back on Browns inside. The point that was made is, if Brown wasn't impeded, he would have been exactly where the Knights player went through to score.

  • It's hard to believe they got this one wrong. Does anyone know if Anusley mentioned it in his Monday morning self appreciation conference?

This reply was deleted.

More stuff to read

Frank The Tank replied to Poppa's discussion This is a preamble piece in discussion of BHP selling Oil and Gas assets to Woodside. Climate Alarmists maybe/should be alarmed.
"Ive bought a heap of new tank tops ready for booster 30.... i cant be stuffed continaully rolling up the sleeves."
2 minutes ago
Parrakeet replied to Mr 'EffortOnEffort' Analyst's discussion Eels fight to retain stars
"JA will do his back in at 9 he is a basket baller. Gutho is king Matt Burton is Button.  Brent Naden may have gone for more money or due to fallout around  last years GF.  Now there's a great player and Eels are a bit clueless if they did not…"
6 minutes ago
Frank The Tank replied to Mr 'EffortOnEffort' Analyst's discussion Eels fight to retain stars
"The NRL souldve brought in two clubs - imagine the greed then?"
6 minutes ago
Frank The Tank replied to Mr 'EffortOnEffort' Analyst's discussion Eels fight to retain stars
"Hahaha - if we dont laugh......"
7 minutes ago