dire game all round! wigan arent that great tonight either

Thought I was the only one who saw that. Looked quite clear that he threw it down to me as well. Annoying for us Salford fans how it led to a try as well, we have been awful going forward tonight though.

Don't particularly like Lockers but Daryl Griffins "accidental" brush on a Wigan players chest with his studs after his confrontation was missed too.

Dire game. To be fair to Wigan you'd think it was Salford who'd have had the short turn around.

Some very poor reffing. Both from Bentham and his TJ's.

The penalty for the rip, that was overruled by the tj, only to be shown as a blatant rip was very very poor indeed.

Missed high tackle at the start by Manfredi and looked like there were a few instances of deliberates knees to the head whilst peeling off tackle from Wigan early on (possibly the TV angle though).

As it goes it hasn't impacted the result, but very poor performance.

Play like life depends on it against leeds.

Bend over against wigan.

Standard.

And the obstruction rule changes again (or the VR's interpretation of it).

Correct.

Smith took the return ball on the inside of the passer and ran round him.

Whether or not you think it was an obstruction, the interpretation ALL SEASON, would have seen that scrubbed off.

lol at this thread,

1. Chase didn't even drop kick it grubberd it.
2. o'loughlin didn't trip chase he was trying to kick the ball back to a Wigan player and he made contact with the ball
3. the obstruction ruling was correct and people who don't understand the difference between a run around and a pass behind a dummy runner really need to wake up.

Good to see that it was the Ref who won the game, never mind.

Where exactly is Taylor (IIRC) meant to teleport to so that he doesn't 'obstruct' the Salford defender?

1 - I agree with that, it looked dubious to me.
2 - he did trip Chase, it will have been his intention to get the ball but he did clatter Chase and should've been a penalty.
3 - I was happy with both the obstruction decisions given tonight and thought the VR was correct with both. It's a poor argument for people say they wouldn't have awarded it earlier in the year (maybe they wouldn't) but does that mean they should continue calling them incorrectly or instead turn things around and use a bit of common sense.

Can somebody explain to me why it is a GIMME as John Kear said that Wigan would have a home play off tie?

Saints are above them. Leeds will go above them if they win this week and we will go joint with them on Sunday if we beat London :/

Because no matter the result of the first playoff game, or where it is, the 2nd one would be a home match.



Before someone mentions Wire, I doubt they'll make up the 200 points difference in 4 games even if they do manage to draw level with Wigan.

Maintain my stance, refs was terrible, Salford were worse. Wigan got some decisions I'd be embarrassed by if I were a Wigan fan, but Wigan could of not actually put a team out and Salford would still of lost. Didn't affect the result in any way, but still not good!

And the commentary was as equally painful...

Yep.


1 - I haven't seen it again but I thought he grubbered it too, but then that happens in plenty of "low" drop outs, not to mention kicking it from in front of the try line.

2 - It was the strangest attempt at kicking the ball back to a team mate I've seen if that's the case, he didn't make contact with the ball either. Should've been a penalty at least.

3 - No it wasn't. Because it wasn't a run around. It was a pass, followed by an inside return pass, followed by the ball carrier running behind his own player. That's not a run around. For it to be a run around the player "running around" (was it Smith?) needs to be much further "around" the man before he gets the return pass.

I can accept that, but not the "he intentionally ran over to trip him up" argument. I will have to look at it again but i don't think his foot made contact with chase did it, he did clatter into him but its just two players going for a 50-50 ball. Also thats not the first time chase has done that for a drop out.

Yep, IIRC it's only 7th & 8th placed that aren't guaranteed at least 1 home playoff game.

Let's start with the original topic. SOL tried to kick the ball backwards, missed and took Chase instead, yes it should have been a penalty but 'football tackles' , bit OTT. As others have pointed out the 'drop out' wasn't drop kicked. I'm not sure whether that should have resulted in a penalty or a re-take. Anyone know the rules on that one.

I assume the obstruction people are talking about is in the build up to the Gelling try after half time. If it is then yes it should have been given IMO. If you're talking about the Smith try then you obviously don't know the rules or understand the game. As I said on our board, obstruction seems to have gone full circle this season. Not too long ago we were all complaining too many were given now they are looking for reasons not to give them.

I find it quite amusing on threads like this how most of you love to point out the calls that went in Wigan's favour and ignore the ones that didn't. Griffin stamped on Flower. Not a particularly vicious one admittedly but a stamp it was. Smith was taken out without the ball over the line, there should have been a strong case for a penalty try, if not it should certainly have been a penalty. When I watch the game back I'm sure I could counter the calls that went in Wigan's favour with ones that went in Salfords.

Wigan played reasonably well and ran away with it in the end. We were dominant in the tackle and controlled the play the ball. Salford were very poor, their timing was off, every time they got in a decent position they dropped it and Sau bombed a sitter. The ref did not contribute to the result.

The fact his foot swung back to his own line would imply he was trying to kick it backwards.

your second sentence explains a run around perfectly, catching the ball on the outside shoulder does not apply when the runner has passed the ball.

I don't think O'Loughlin was going full on for a trip, I think he was trying to get his body in between Chase and the ball. Should've been a penalty.
As mentioned Chase didn't drop out properly, I don't know what the rule is, it'd probably be retaken like a 20m tap that isn't performed correctly. Though I'd be happy for it to be a penalty!


Not really, in my opinion. The player "running around" needs to be much further around the player "being run around" than they were. The return pass in a run around is, at least, in the middle of the move, not at the start.


Eastbourne Warrior makes a good point about some decisions that went against Wigan too. The biggest one for me was Smith being taken out over the line. As mentioned a good case for a penalty try.

Lol.

It seems lots of rules don't apply when wearing Cherry & White.

FYI, I wanted, and am very happy with, a Wigan win tonight.

not at all they got the first one spot on, but you can't call obstruction on a run around unless another player has blocked the salford player. Anybody who watches the NRL will see Tigers or the bulldogs do it countless off times.

If you go back to the previous thread regarding obstruction you will my opinion on obstructions be that for or against Wigan.

Do you want to stand by your comment that "catching the ball on the outside shoulder does not apply when the runner has passed the ball."?