Commentators divided over controversial obstruction call that cost the Chiefs a try

By The Roar / Editor

Obstruction or not?

The Crowd Says:

2021-06-07T13:00:00+00:00

Keilidh

Roar Rookie


Offside runners continuing to advance into defenders is one of the most annoying parts of the game, they interfere with play and should be penalised.

2021-06-07T10:12:03+00:00

HiKa

Roar Rookie


The only "controversy" is that a couple of the commentary team had to have it explained to them. Even if the defender only had a small chance of making the tackle, he was denied that chance, and as you say, it's a penalty every time. (Except at Twickenham when Stephen Moore was impeded but the ref and TMO decided "it wasn't enough of an obstruction" to not award England a try a couple of phases after an obvious foot in touch by Mike Brown, and that was the difference between a Grand Slam with Link's team in 2013 and not.)

2021-06-07T07:32:19+00:00

ShaghaiDoc

Guest


To quote Nigel Owens, "Tackle made. Play on!".

2021-06-06T23:53:14+00:00

Wally James

Roar Guru


That was not a decoy runner. Put in the language of the Law Book, the penalised player was in front of his man in possession of the ball. He became offside as a consequence. He is not to be penalised for offside unless he obstructs an opponent. He did. Therefore penalty. Another way to look at it is “Why was he there in the first place?” Answer “To make things difficult for the Defence.” Penalty every day of the week.

Read more at The Roar