Can anyone remember an occasion when the ball has been legitimately grounded in the in goal area, but the on field ref wants to check for a possible obstruction,he has not signalled a try to the video ref,then asked him to check the possible obstruction? Thalers decision of no try was a travesty,and the decision of the video ref was a total cop out. If Brough decides to tackle the man without the ball, isn't that his fault? Even Cummings thought it was a try If refs are going to try and even matches for Sky's benefit,then I may as well stop watching games altogether. Does anybody know what the penalty count was.

It was a try. If the players cannot offer a lead option line to commit defenders anymore the game is taking yet another step to the grave.

According to the radio we were penalised 15 times.
The standard of or impartiality of referees has long lost its integrity in rugby league.

Well let's at first event up a bit!

Wire made 4 defensive penalties in as little as 2 min and another in attack a min after a team warning and never faced a sun bin!

That 3/4 min period was responsible for 1/3rd of our penalties in the whole game?...and BT was correct with every one but either soft or forgetful on Atkins.

If you remove that period, things are pretty even. Most of our penalties came simply for trying to slow down Wakey after a tackle.

As for the obstruction...I don't know, it's to technical for me, apparently there is some rule interpretation change. Looked good to me but 2 refs disallowed it so I can't argue.

....what is interesting, I don't think there was a high/head shot in the game from either side.

RD is correct, there is now new guidance re the obstruction rule.

Apparently the video ref is now allowed best of three when tossing the coin to decide whether to award it or not.

As for Thaler being consistent, give me a break. He did us for moving off the mark and Fifita was at it all game, and in the final 20 minutes every 50/50 call went against us, giving them all the field position and posession. He'd have done us for handball at that stage if he could. Even in the first half when we were ripping them to shreds he was giving them plenty of latitude but apparently it was us that was lying on.

tries have been chalked off for the last 3 seasons for obstruction where we are constantly told:

"The lead runner is stood in the defensive line. If they had carried on running through it wouldn't be obstruction, it would be a good attacking line and the try would be Given."

So what do we do? we send a lead runner straight through the line, no hanging around impeding defenders and we still get pinged. Absolute joke how Refs change their minds every week about their interpretation of the rules.

We were put on a warning for 3 defensive penalties... We were penalised again for bmm moving off the mark..according to Cummins it was a different type of penalty hence why no one was binned...baffling

Yes he's trying to make an excuse...for the ref, I asumed a penalty warning is not just a defensive penalty warning.

I am lead to believe thaler was born in Wakefield explains a lot really

Well that doesn't follow why he let us off without an Atkins sin binning?

Maybe not but could well explain us being penalized to death in the last 20 minutes

I agree with the OP; for me it was a clear try. The ball had already gone and Brough made a clear movement to tackle the man, rather than being ran into and fouled? Seemed a cop out.

I'm sorry but that a try, rule interpretation or not. Currie goes through the line without touching Brough. Brough went for Currie, also you can clearly see Currie even try to arc away from Brough so he cant touch him but Brough still goes for him. Its a poor read by Brough and should have been a try.

Also a second note, will Mamo be dropped next week. He was just as bad as Lineham against Catalan. Ok, the pass wasnt great but it bombed a try. Secondly that failed take of a bouncing ball in the ingoal area was woeful. Luckily Ratchford was there to clear it up. Thirdly, he is completely dominated in the tackle.

I hope Lineham is back.

I hope Lineham is back, harshly treated in my opinion.

Defaulting to the decision of the on-field ref if the video ref is uncertain is just plain daft. The video ref has much more reliable evidence to base a decision on than the on-field ref in the majority of cases.

Price should do the Alex Ferguson trick of moaning about the referee before a game takes place.

The problem is this : you could go to any RL game, any team, any ref (includig Thaler) anywhere in the world between now and October and the exact same scenario will be given as a try.

Similarly, if Walmsley moves off the mark tonight will he get pinged like BMM did? No, he'll probably get a penalty for Cas messing around.

Refs and the RFL are trying to make an exact science out of officiating to the point that common sense are dispensed with in favour of obscure laws and unyielding interpretations of the rule.

The rule about players on the floor at the ptb has become a get out of jail free card for players, including our own, to get a dead cert penalty.

Unless a player is deliberately interfering with the ptb or obstructing a player by physically restraining a defender then it should be play on.

They are discussing last nights no try ahead of the Cas game, the word is Hicks had insufficient evidence to overturn Thaler’s decision LMAO.

Eye witness testimony of man with one look at it in real-time trumps opinion of man with several looks at it from various angles and in slow motion

Perhaps specsavers should be binned off in favour test-you-own-specs from Benidorm market.

They're sponsored by Ronseal now, 'It does exactly what it says on the tin'.