Unfortunately though that's always going to be the case, as a rule it's hugely open to interpretation. The only way you can make it black and white is to say that anyone who runs behind a teammate will be penalised regardless, and no one wants to see that. Just take it on the chin.

I think the ref knew that previous play the ball should have been a pen (grabbing Sarginsons leg whilst he is playing the ball) so saw what he wanted to see to make it right.

The obstruction was fair enough. If Watkins wasn't there Tomkins wouldn't have run in, that is fair enough to say (so he made a bad read) but he could have made a play at the ball carrier without Watkins in between him and said ball carrier. Watkins should have gone through the line, not stood right in the way.

I don't think anyone would say it wouldnt have been a try if Watkins ran through the line. But he didn't. Why? His team gains an advantage from him being there.

Got away with? Oh please. Give your head a wobble.

Silverwood had a good game. The knock-on was missed in live play (unsurprisingly, given it was a marginal touch), but then Leeds got away with Hall's leg-pulling a few seconds earlier. Swings and roundabouts.

The obstruction was correct. You simply can't run behind a player so close to the defensive line when that player is stood among the defenders. I'm not sure how many more times Cummings could have explained it for the hard of understanding.

I wonder if those outraged Leeds fans would feel the same had it been, say, Tomkins stood in their own defensive line, with Smith running behind him. Oh, you would? Yes, of course you would.

Ironically that no try was given on a point that, in the past, there was no arguments with. "Crossing" was the obstruction rule that everyone on the terraces actually understood. The guy with the ball runs behind his own man so unsighting the defence. Then Wigan ran their dummy runner plays that coaches complained about and obstruction decisions just got daft.
Watkins shoved his hands in the air and gave himself up.
As to the reason silverwood didn't call it straight away- why should he? He knew he could call on the VR if Leeds put the ball down to check it.

incorrect

because hes a spineless coward just like the rest of our amateur refs. Theres a reason why RL is still parochical its the ineptitude of the officials and the amateur clowns like obese dave woods who are running the game (into the ground)

RL outside the heartlands is either entirely anonymous or a laughing stock. I was telling a client up here in the NE about the Stobart sponsorship debacle and he thought I was joking. They literally would have got better value if they had been given a bag of magic beans for title sponsorship rights, at least we could have harvested the ing beanstalk. Its so frustrating because we have great athletes, a fabulous product some great clubs and a rabid supporter base being let down by rank amateurs in red hall and in charge of officiating the games

i take it the "whinos" lost tonight

Shhhhh, Your not allowed to point out the decisions that went the other way!.....




fwiw I thought it was a great game and with the amount of chances Wigan created I don't think anyone can say they didn't deserve to win. I wouldn't have argued with a draw but to the people who seem to be saying that Leeds were the better team tonight are a bit away from the truth imo.

Rugby Gods?

For what it's worth, I thought the disallowed Leeds try should have been given. And I have to say the two phases leading up to it were as good as I've seen this year, unbelievable offloads and movement.

But there were more than a few ifs, buts and maybes in that match. Overall, a draw would definitely have been fair but I'm pleased to have edged it at the end - huge win for Wigan.

No, that was last week when Danny McGuire "broke" his ankle.

Classy.

What if McGuire was tackled a yard short, a quick PTB and then Leeds score? He couldn't go back and check the previous play. Think that's the point. I'd keep the VR but get rid of the on-field ref sending it up as a try/no try, I've never liked the idea. You don't know if he's sending it up as 90% confident, 70% confident, 50% confident in his decision.

Firstly what a great game to watch. I wish we had more like it.

I thought the no try was a really tight call. I can see the argument both ways and I'm honestly not sure whether is was or not. I think the VR, after numerous looks wasn't sure either so went with the ref's call. Like others I can't understand, if Silverwood thought it was an obstruction why he didn't blow up for it.

The other one I don't understand is the Wigan knock on which led to a try. Why do VR sometimes get involved and sometimes don't. The on field ref is always going to make errors as they get one look in real time. There needs to be some consistency with when the VR gets involved. Whether that is only for tries, for tries and foul play or for all decisions when there is a stoppage. Frankly I don't care which one as long as it's consistent.

To add a bit of balance to this thread and to be fair a whole lot of forward passes particularly by Leeds were missed to, one led to a try so I suppose that evens up the Wigan knock on. I thought a draw would of been a fair result but a huge dumb play by Aiton gave Wigan the win.

Well even " the Expert " Mr Cummins confirmed the decision was correct and had to explain to the two Sky muppets the rule much to their disappointment

Stuart "defend the referee's decision" Cummings......not even worth listening to what he says.

I would have given the try, and the miss of the smith knock on was a bit of a shocker. However, champion sides need to win from those sorts of situations, Wire and Saints have shown how to play Wigan, dominate them in the forwards, then play off the back of it. Leeds just seemed to want to play a bit too much tonight.

I love the way Leeds play the game, they just needed to show the pies who was boss first.

this the 'expert' who said saints try last week was a knock on when it was knocked backwards? and a try was given.

You'll need them.

Bet you're looking forward to a Super 8s visit to Headingley? We ran you pretty close last night with the team we had, Ooohh Leeds by absolute plenty!

I think the obstruction decision was harsh, but its definitely a matter of option, so if the VR disagrees, I can at least see why. For me though, no one was actually obstructed from accessing the ball carrier. Tomkins just made a bad read.

Aiton was unlucky, he looked like he was just trying to get out of the way rather than intentionally obstruct, but moved straight into the Wigan player. It marred what was an excellent personal performance.

Cost me a fiver this did!

Stuart Cummings has lied about the rules numerous times on Sky in order to defend the referees. Last night was another occasion.

Now, in my opinion of what an obstruction SHOULD be then that last night was a penalty. You run behind your own man (1 who's made a run like Watkins, not 1 stood there "out of play"icon_wink.gif close to the defensive line then I think it should be a penalty.

But that's not what the rule is and we've seen a fair few tries given this year that were "worse" than that. That's the bit that's annoying as a Leeds fan, especially as the decision was made by the video ref. The video ref shouldn't be getting decisions wrong, it's inexcusable.

If Silverwood had made that call in play then ok. I might still mutter a bit but he has to make an instant decision after 1 viewing often from an imperfect viewpoint. But the VR shouldn't be getting those wrong.

I'm also concerned as to how a ref can send an incident such as that up to the video ref as "no try". It wasn't an incident over the try line where you're making an instant decision, by allowing play to continue Silverwood has already made his decision. So if he thought it was obstruction he should have blown his whistle. As others have said, if Leeds get tackled play continues.

It's another inconsistency with the refereeing that leads to unintended consequences.
The unintended consequence of refs not calling held earlier is that you get more wrestling and twisting of players and so more injuries.

The unintended consequence of refs not policing the ruck (interference etc) is that you get more "exaggeration" by ball carriers at the play the ball.

The unintended consequence of refs only using the VR after players go down injured is that players pretend to be injured.

The unintended consequence of refs allowing play to continue in order to send it up to the VR instead of making a decision is that it's now in the attacking teams interest to get tackled immediately after an incident rather than go for the try.

Its funny how a lot of people seem the decision was by the letter of the law, you cant run behind your own player, obstruction was correct etc. I suggest you go read the actual law.

By the letter of the law, Watkins did everything required of him at the time, i.e raised his hands to signal he wasn't involved in the play, however Tomkins, who wasn't impeded in the slightest decided to risk allowing a score against his team by moving towards Watkins, feigning obstruction and throwing his hands in the air. If I was Wigan and Wane id be having a word with Tomkins about his commitment in defence as we will likely see these tries given at some point in the future due to the inconsistent performance of the match officials.

As for "the expert" Stuart Cummings, take what he says with a pinch of salt. He hasn't got a clue and only succeeds in making himself and the match officials look more and more stupid every week. Cummings will say something constantly until he believes its true and then shrink back in to his shell when the complete opposite decision is given. It was only last week I think when the vid ref was called on to debate a knock on during a try, every man and his dog was calling try and the vid ref agreed. Not t'old Stu pot though, no, he was adamant it was a knock on. Nice try Stu, thanks for your input.

Agreed - and in and of themselves, unintended consequences are not a disaster; if you identify them and make corrections, then you're demonstrating that you can learn and adapt. The problem with RL is that it's run by a tin-pot organisation with no such professional discipline, so there appears to be no mechanism by which they can tweak a rule, watch what happens, then make further tweaks to correct the unintended consequences of their actions. By contrast, coaches and players seem perfectly capable of so doing, which is why every year, new and more egregious forms of cheating become commonplace, with no response from the RFL.

Tompkins f@cked up and the ref rescued him. As every player on the commentary team said. Which player was obstructed? Because Tompkins wasn't he was at the wrong side to be so.