After Fulton realised the ball had been passed to Barba, he released off Pritchard and raced across-field to try to tackle Barba. League fans who follow the game closely understand that regardless of what happened next, a penalty should have been awarded to the Tigers. This is because Fulton had been enticed to come forward and tackle Pritchard while Barba gained an advantage by running around the back of the Bulldogs No.11. Why? Because this is the NRL, not the NFL, and you can't impede defenders by running behind your own men.

"But there wasn't much in it," I hear some of you saying. What's the difference if he catches the ball a few metres wider? Well, one area where the NRL is like the NFL is that it's a game of inches, and every inch counts. If we return to the picture, once Fulton committed to Pritchard, the defender on Fulton's outside, Benji Marshall, is in the hot-seat. And the Tigers' defensive game-plan in this situation would have been for Marshall to come forward and hit Barba as he caught the ball. However, due to Barba catching the ball on the inside of Pritchard, there was too much ground for Marshall to cover in order to tackle Barba in time to stop the play. When a pass is thrown, the amount of time the ball is in the air is very important to a defender who wants to come forward and shut down a play. Barba being inside Pritchard when he catches the ball ensures only a short pass is required. This gives defenders very little time to race up on Barba and shut him down. If Barba was to receive his passes on the outside of the decoy runner as opposed to inside him, it would make a considerable difference to the defensive team's ability to defend it. It would also be a legal second-man play as opposed to an illegal one.

The Bulldogs have been getting away with this for most of the season and it is no wonder since we seem to have lost our way when it comes to what constitutes an obstruction.

Picture two is the lead-up to the Hodges try for Queensland, which was a dead-set obstruction. The scary thing, however, is that it wasn't only the video referee who thought it was a try, but so too did the NRL refereeing hierarchy. Have they gone mad?