The try tonight for benefit of doubt made me realise that this has to be one of the worse rules ever!

I thought it was a good effort by Lockers and if a there is doubt in your mind about the try then surely it cannot be given. It should only be given in you are 100% sure it is a try.

This rule needs to be scrapped because it is ridiculous, the defensive team should be rewarded for causing that doubt not punished for it!

Video refs are biased !

Sour grapes. It was obviously a try and you were well beaten by a far better team.
Realise the truth.
Absorb the truth.
come to terms with not making the play offs!

As a neutral Wakey fan thought you got a couple of bad calls that really influenced the game especially after half time.
Also thought nobby handled with decorum in the post match interviews.
Sorry to say the sun shines out of the rhinos rear end at present, but you have also held that position years gone by.
Here's to it shining out of our rear and yours again in the future.

Not sour grapes at all, you were by far the better team, we were awful and deserved to lose. The fact of the matter is the rule is barmy, they have gone for us and against before.

Let me ask you, if it was obviously a try and by 'obviously' im guessin you are 100% sure, then why was it given benefit of doubt?

Wishful thinking.

Best team won there's no doubting that, we had the ball for all of 10 minutes in the first half.

But the fact of the matter is that it could have been 22-18 just after half time and if it had been it would have been a very different last 30 minutes.

I'm not one for complaining about refs, video refs as it's our players who have to go out and perform and if they don't (Ie. tonights first half) then we get tonked.

Because although you couldn't see any part of the ball touching the grass it was reasonable to assume that it had.

Sometimes regardless of the number of cameras and video technology you still have to apply a bit of educated guesswork and rightly or wrongly the benefit of doubt does go to the attacking team.

To an extent I agree with you but with all the cameras and video technology we still did not see the ball touch the grass. Tries should only been giving if they are 100% sure its a try, we cant be handing out tries willy nilly

And it's also reasonable to assume that the ball didn't touch the grass.

Peacock hardly celebrated which imo shows that he wasn't confident.

I'd disagree on the basis that there appeared more of the ball behind O'Loughlin's hand than in front of it and therefore it was reasonable to assume that some part of the ball (out of sight) had touched down. To me that's what the 'Benefit Of Doubt' ruling is there for.



That lads too honest for his own good. I think he probably just didn't know one way or the other but you are right he should have gone up for it more regardless. Extra training Sunday morning.

Had there been no video ref I believe it would have been given without any consultation.

PMSL!!

You guys really think you're something special. You're not.

If you were a genuinely special team, you'd have blown us away by 50 clear points last night. As it was, you deservedly won, but were helped massively in the second half by some extremely dubious refereeing.

Don't worry - we'll be in the play-offs. And yet again, you lot will be kakking your keks at the thought of meeting us.

Home win. In the bank

There are two issues here.

1. If Peacock's try was BOD then so should have been Donalds (given) and Ainscough's (disallowed). There is evidence to suggest those were a no try and a try respectively.

2. Only in RL could we have a rule such as BOD, issues such as tries need to be decided by clear rules, not an interpretation that changes by ref, and even within a game. No other sport that wants to be taken seriously would introduce a rule that is so difficult to argue with as it is all down to opinion.

The Ainscough one, was a clear no try.

I always try to judge a VR decision by swapping it round and thinking what I would have felt had the decision had to have been made the other way around.

eg.

Lulu try - I thought that Ainscough was offside (if only slightly) and would have been mad as hell if Leeds had scored it and it would have been allowed.

Hock try - this board would have been up in arms had Leeds scored that try and it been allowed. The problems lies in the fact that the obstruction rule is a complete mess and I don't think anyone, and that includes the refs, know how to interpret the rule correctly.

Peacock try - Had it been Fielden I would have gutted to see a decision any other than TRY.

Therefore in my opinion as hard as it may be to take I think they got all 3 decisions correct.

The best way to avoid BOD is to prevent the opposition team crossing your line! If we start giving BOD to defence then we run the risk of turning SL into NRL.

Yes I can agree with pretty much all of that. Leeds are a long, long way from being anything special at the moment. I thought Wigan were truly awful on the night and Leeds while better than that made far too many errors to be classed as anything other than ordinary.

Skill levels are pretty poor this season so far and I've yet to see a game that was anything other than mediocre.

Hopefully it'll improve as the season goes on for all of us.

Oh and Peacock's waited five months for that decision after the one in the play off game went Wigan's way.

I'm afraid I disagree with most of this.

Lulu try - correct decision, no try.

Hock try - have we really, as a game, come to the point where a player who knows he cannot make a tackle has only to throw himself at a stationary player in order to get a perfectly worked try disallowed!

Sure, if the attacking player changes his line to 'block' the defender but deliberately running at a player and claiming obstruction is making a mockery of our game. Let's be honest...and this should be the defining reasoning here...had O'Loughlin not been on the field the Leeds player would not have prevented that try!

Peacocks try - These are given as 'no try' every week. In fact Leeds held a couple up the previous match at Warrington and rightly got the decisions. The defender should be credited just as much as the attacker. Nowhere can the ball be seen to touch the ground, yet you can clearly see it held up. As a Leeds poster says elswhere, you can only 'guess' that it 'probably' touched the ground. That's not good enough. The only actual evidence suggests that it was held up. Why should the benefit go to th attacker when the only evidence available supports the defender?! As an aside look at the player's reactions. Peacock doesn't celebrate the try and Richards is vociferous in his claims that it has been held up by O'Loughlin. Player reaction is usually as good an indicator as anything else!

I thought Smith was poor last night. He never called a single forward pass, despite there being many, including some that lead to tries and missed 2 blatent reefs among many other things. However we lost due to our own errors, so in the end it's all just tomorrow's chip wrappers...

The Wigan dummy runner really needed to run through the line and not stop, causing a potential block on a defender. I'm sure we've all fallen foul of this, Leeds did last season at Harlequins for instance.

biased in what way please?

I'm not particularly questioning the decision so much as the fact that the video refs have come to interpret it this way. It was always the case that a player had to 'alter their line' so as to be seen to be deliberately bocking (or obstructing

) another player for this decision to be given. Now all a player has to do is launch himself at a stationary player in order to get a perfectly worked try disallowed! That's a pathetic interpretation of the rule IMO and I'm not sure how we, as a game, have come to accept it.

Just one question. Do you think the Leeds defender would have prevented the try had O'Loughlin not been there? I doubt he would have even got a hand to Hock let alone effected the tackle on a player in full flight! That should be the sole arbiter of whether he was obstructed or not.

I'd need to at least have a few more looks to judge on that one. As I said before though had the Wigan dummy runner continued his run through the line then there would have been no problem. It's a coached tactic for the dummy runner to halt around the gain line/defensive line to create a block and open a hole in the defence. While Ablett certainly made the most of the block, the Wigan player being stationary there minding his own business as it were, gave the struggling defender an easy way out.