poyntonshark wrote: ↑Mon Mar 08, 2021 9:02 am
Wasn't a comment on that try, I haven't seen your game yet, just in general. Though of course, you are right, if the player gets to the tackle anyway, then he wasn't really obstructed.
We were pinged for not retreating 10 when PJ booted it from our 22 to their 22 - most of our team were between our 10 and halfway and to me the receiver had time and space to move forward if he wanted to, but they got a penalty around halfway.
With the crossing I think PJ dummied a short pop and went round the back, so our runner went into defender 1 in front of the ball but defender 2 immediately tackled PJ so we didn't 'gain' anything by the crossing.
And finally, for their try an inside dummy runner made some slight contact with PJ (that man again) and the ball went back inside through the hole that Paddy might or might not have filled if he hadn't been contacted. We had a try disallowed later on for a more blatant obstruction of a defender as we went down the blindside, although the commentators were suggesting the defender might not've got there anyway.
Three interesting (to me!) little snippets that could've been done differently, according to a London Irish fan, compared to how they were actually dealt with to Wayne Barnes, an experienced and world class referee! But like you've said if foul play takes material impact out of the equation that would explain why the three pens against us were given - the two obstructions were also a lot more obvious than anything Tigers might or might not have done.