The obstruction rule, feat Hudson

I’ve conducted an interview with a friend (Hudson, name changed for privacy) who is equally passionate about the NRL reguarding the at times controversial obstruction rule. I personally think the way it’s interpreted is a joke and so many tries have been disallowed that shouldn’t have been this year, mostly from decoy runners coming into contact with defenders.

The rule itself makes sense, if they’ve impeded another player from defending then it should be a penalty, but I think what they interpret as impeded the player is ridiculous. Take for example this week Broncos vs. Souths, Matt Gillet’s try should have been awarded but since the Rabbitoh’s defender purposely hit into another Broncos player (in my opinion).

I think what needs to be done is a CLEAR definition of what impeding the play is, until that time the refs can call obstruction or not obstruction on a whim, although they have been fairly consistent.

Anyway, here’s the interview:

D: What are your thoughts and opinions on the obstruction rule?

H: The decoy runners have to get their act together and not bang into an opposing player. But still, if the opposing player gets a small bump they shouldn’t be falling over like soccer players.

D: So what you’re saying is a small bump is okay, but a push isn’t?

H: Basically, yeah. But since the players all try to milk it and fall over then cry obstruction the decoys should simply stop running into players.

D: You think the players need to adjust, rather than the rules?

H: Well not much can be done about either, so I don’t really know

D: So you think leave the rule as is?

H: Yeah, just get the players to pull their heads in.

D: Did you see Matt Gillet’s disallowed try this week?

H: Yeah, the defender clearly ran into the Broncos player without the ball. Clear case of milking it.

D: I’ll agree with you there, thanks for the interview mate

H: No worries

There you have it, folks. Two sides to the obstruction rule. What do you guys think?

- Daniel Arthur