Strange how all the other passes shown from the same camera angle in that attacking set look backwards, it's only the Tomkins to Richards that is an optical illusion.

What's Bentham got to do with it?

The score was 20-16, a four point difference.
Pick where that four points came from,
a) Bailey's push on Logan Tomkins, result a pen and two points.
b) JJ Buchanan's lifting Lauaki's leg and pushing him over, pen and 2 points.
c) Sinfield's poor kick from which Charnley scored a try, four points.
Eight points to Wigan there and all through Leeds' mistakes.
As far as the Mcguire touch down, McDermott agreed that it was the right decision under the rules. He just didn't like the way the rules were applied to his team, that's all.

I agree with this to some respect. Watching 'The Superleague Show' Tony Smith made a good point re Hullgate. He said he would expect the on pitch officials to pick up the offside without the need for the VR

Remember there are 5 games a week without the "so-called" advantage of the VR, and in this case the advantage has clearly failed. Would Thaler have given the try in a non-televised match?

During the Leeds replay I quite clearly heard Silverwood say "play on" as McGuire went behind his player. At the moment it seems the referees are using the video referee way too much for things that in the past would've been expected to be picked up by themselves. As far as Im concerned, the ref made his decision, play on, Leeds scored. There shouldn't have been any possible reason for him to go to the VR. The video ref should be used for try's like Dixons and Watkins superb corner efforts, not for something that happens 10min before on the halfway line which should've been picked up by a touch judge or referee anyway!

It's done, move on. By the letter of the law mcguire infringed, the ref, after hullgate, wanted to make absolutly sure so referred it and the video ref made the right (albeit annoying) call. Had it not been for the stupidity of some of our own players we'd have probably won regardless.

We need to focus on getting back to winning ways now as we are still well in contention for for 2nd place.

I agree but the video ref can't disreguard the black and white rules and use common sense instead. The rules need to be altered to allow a more common sense approach.

Stuart cummings summed it up best in commentary and showed what a straight forwards decision it was.

Was the leeds in the defensive line? yes
did the ball handling player run behind him? yes

No try. Simple.

Can you find the rule that makes it illegal for a player to be in the defensive line, or the rule that states it's illegal to run behind a teammate? I can't. I can find rules that say an obstruction should be penalised, but none that cover running behind a teammate or an attacking player being in the defensive line.

players run behind teammates in every single game. the vast majority are not a penalty as there is no interference. this happened on sunday. common sense says its a try. not one wigan player complained at the time.
i have seen these decisions go for and against us. its a lottery

I'm only going off stuart cummings criteria which he commentated on. There was a 3rd criteria but i can't remember what it was and he said in his opinion it was no try.

So, did Stuart Cummings disregard the rules?

The result was the correct one, Wigan deserved the win.

The only point I would make about the obstruction in relation to the McGuire No Try, is specifically, who was Obstructed? No one was impeded from making a tackle, and no one left a gap as McGuire passed to McShane, he didn't dummy and go through the gap that would have been created by the missing (obstructed) defender. This I think is the point McDermott is making.

you echo my thoughts batley

In my opinion Matty Smith was 'obstructed'. Not obstructed literally but see him hesitate when McGuire goes to pass but runs instead. If McGuire passes when he should then Matty Smith has every chance of making the tackle on McShane.

All IMHO of course.

Squad:

1. Zak Hardaker
3. Kallum Watkins
4. Joel Moon
5. Ryan Hall
6. Danny McGuire
7. Rob Burrow
8. Kylie Leuluai
9. Paul McShane
11. Jamie Jones-Buchanan
13. Kevin Sinfield (c)
15. Brett Delaney
16. Ryan Bailey
17. Ian Kirke
18. Chris Clarkson
19. Mitch Achurch
21. Richard Moore
23.Brad Singleton
25. Joe Vickery
26. Liam Sutcliffe

Achurch + someone else to miss out

Is this the same 19 as last week and the week before?
I would leave out Delaney giving him another weeks rest and Bailey giving Moore a run out.
But it wont happen.

I'd leave out Delaney and Moore. Keep Singleton and Sutcliffe whilst their confidence is up

If a player is in the defensive line, and is not interfering with play..... What the hell is he doing!!!???!!!

Just realised I posted the 19 man squad in the wrong thread *facepalm*

Preparing to defect to the winning side perhaps

I see what you are saying Wheels, but isn't that just a poor defensive read by Smith? Players do that all the time.

McShane got the ball away to Moon pretty sharpish as well so even if Smith had got there it's unlikely he'd have prevented the pass that led to the break.

Is that not Matty Smith falling for a dummy rather than him being blocked by the attacking player in the defensive line?

stood still with his hands on his head after making a dummy run as instructed by the RFL to signal to the referee he isnt attempting to interfere with play?

Do we want to have players ahead of the ball carrier parking themselves in the defensive line while a team-mate crosses behind?

It didn't appear a planned move. Clarkson throws the anchor out and raises his arms - he should have run through the line, McGuire appeared distracted and dummied the pass before reluctantly running behind his team-mate, surely expecting the whistle to go at that moment but hoping it wouldn't. Had McGuire not dummied the pass to McShane just at the point he was about to cross/crossing (it was tight) behind Clarkson Leeds might have gotten away with it.

We all know we won't have to wait long before one of these 'obstructions' will be ignored and we'll think back to Sunday but for me it was a clear enough decision for the referee and video referee to make and the correct call - although obviously like Ian Smith I don't understand the game.

They made conflicting decisions, either one of them doesn’t understand the game, or there isn’t a hard and fast ‘obstruction’ like there isn’t a hard and fast slowing the ptb, and it is down to the referees opinion.

The rules are clear that obstruction is when an attacking player (without the ball) deliberately puts himself in an obstructing position.
The rule also specifically (yes, specifically) state that the player with ball can run through a ruck of his own players if he likes.
So-called "crossing" in itself is not illegal, it's only illegal when the player without the ball puts himself into an obstructing position.
Where the player with the ball runs behind a stationary attacking player who just happens to be there, it's legal.

In this instance, not only was that the case but, in addition, no-one was obstructed, the defender continued to track McGuire perfectly well.
Plus the supposed obstructer complied with the rules, stood still and signalled his null position in the approved manner

My verdict was was a definite T.R.Y.
But hey-ho, you win some, you lose some.