"Some common sense is needed. Every coach and player in the game would have told you that was a try."

Or words to that effect, as spoken on the SL show this evening.

Nice to know it isn't only Wiganers who were left baffled by Silverwood's latest failure and Eddie and Stevo's predictably vociferous support of it (though these days I just laugh whenever those two show their ar2es in public. They must by now be the most well viewed ar2es in the history of the game).

It was an awful decision.

Had Charnley not scored the try then it wouldn't have even been noticed as obstruction, he took it to the video ref just because it has become the done thing for wide plays with lots of runners, the video ref then convinced himself he must chalk it off because there was 'contact'. FFS contact does not have to mean obstruction. It had no impact on the play what so ever.

Its a joke, that sort of thing goes on a lot, only when a try is scored it gets reviewed. If a certain player gets obstructed and the ref doesn't spot it, they may as well let them go and score the try for it to be brought back.

Indeed. You do wonder now whether in certain instances, the VR has become more of a hinderence than a help. I said on the night that had the game not been on TV, the try would have been given without question. Similarly, had the Hudds game been on TV, their second try may have been took to the VR and may have been ruled out for a knock on. You could argue that that is just decisions evening themselves out, but Charnley's try didn't really matter in the grand scheme of things due to the margin of victory, yet the one last week would have affected the outcome of the game.

The obstruction ruling/decisions needs to be sorted out properly because its a joke for everybody at the moment. How can teams do slick passing moves with dummy runners if every time theres contact off the ball its obstruction? Common sense needs to be applied.

Teams are getting away with huge defensive mistakes time and again due to how daft the obstruction ruled is being enforced at the moment.

It doesn't matter anymore when your involved in a Sky game if you make a bad defensive read because aslong as you throw yourself to the ground you'll get away with it.

It was something that really needed looking at but instead they decided to change 'nothing' rules about having to let the ball bounce behind the dead ball line.

Those decisions really get on my nerves. By the letter of the law it was the correct decision but what annoys me is they are only spotted on televised games when they are followed immediately by a try. If Charnley was held up then we scored off the next play there would be no problem! The VR should decide whether the contact actually makes any difference to the outcome, in Fridays case it didn't as JJB was getting nowhere near it.

There was also a really blatant obstruction towards the end of the 1st half where Sinfield ran behind his own man but this didn't result in a try so wasn't picked up.

I can see why the ruling was brought in to stop dummy runners running at defenders and taking them out like NFL. But now it has gone toofar the other way, in that if a player was running at a gap like he was on Saturday night and a defender touches that runner then the try is disallowed for the attacking team for confusing the poor defenders.

Slightly OT but would any one know if Charnley try would have been allowed in the NRL or not?

Yes baz it would have been allowed in the nrl, it would have been classed as a poor defensive read. Hard to explain without drawings but our player received the ball beyond the dummy runners line.

It was the same all last year. SL chalked off tries that stood in the nrl.

I agree, after re-watching the game on sky, it should have stood. However, cant help thinking had the offending player not have ran the angle straight into JJB and used his shoulder, which he did! If he had just passed JJB and not made the blatant contact regardless of whetther JJB was near the ball or not, the VR might have give it.

Again it should have been a try, only bit I disagree with is the poor defensive read. JJB didn't make any attempt to tackle the player who ran into him. JJB did get taken out he didn't try tackle the player. However he would not have got anywhere near charnley or the ball, and for me was a try

Definite try.

Daft decision!

I have said it before and I say it now,I have often been suspicious that the ref,vidio ref etc are wired into the numpties on TV.
When Charnley touched down I think Albert was going to award the try,but in a flash one of the numpties said "they must review for obstruction"
I have seen it so many times when the grounding is being checked and viewed from 3 or 4
different angles and one of the numpties will say " I think it was the 3rd angle which shows it the best".
Lo and behold that is they camera they go to straight away.

Maybe we Wigan supporters are getting a bit neurotic,but without doubt these two allways seem to be complaining against Wigan.
They definatley have their own Favourites.

I can tolerate muppets in the commentary box who are so stupid that their prejudices are abundantly evident - we've had them all through the history of the game. What I can't tolerate is refereeing ineptitude.

It's bad enough that we have inconsistent idiots like Alibert, Bentham and Silverwood with whistles in their mouths. But to have a so-called Controller of Referees, who presumably is in the ideal position to take a wider view of things, and yet still we have this ridiculous grey area in the game, which - as others have already pointed out - has the potential to take crucial results away from teams completely unfairly, is ludicrous.

How difficult can it be to send a message out to the refs and say: "Never mind the letter of the law, just use your bloody loaf for once in your life! If the man taken out is not involved in play, it ain't an obstruction!"

You have a point about the contact; but what if JJB had hammered the dummy runner? Would the score then be allowed? I always think that the defence should hit the dummy runners they may not be so keen to run the line again.

If JJB had hit the dummy runner then the try would have stood I think.

Flower didnt change his line JJB kept moving into him so it should have stood, he dropped his shoulder to protect himself as JJB was coming at him.

I know you're a Leeds fan so i'll try and keep it simple. It was a poor defensive read from JJB, not a foul by Flower. If flower had veered his run in front of the ball into JJB, this would be a foul. As he ran straight and JJb ran INTO him, this is not a foul. If you;re going to comment on the game, please learn the rules first.

Hahahaha, damn, I knew there was a book I should have read before becoming a RL fan!

Are you not even going to try and argue why you feel it was a foul? Or just make sarcastic comments as you know i'm right?

The JJB and Flower incident is a red herring. They were nowhere near the play. That is the point Wilkin made last night, so, while a defender clearly went down under the impact of a Wigan runner, he was not taken down in the actual act of defending. Not complicated really.

I cant comment when I dont know the rules can I?



But......If you would like to watch the game back, you will see JJB in sliding defence moving with the ball, you will then see the offending player run a line towards the gap, but then change direction to the left ever so slightly towards an unawares JJB completely cleaning him out. Its this change in direction towards the defending player where the offence is committed.



He did





He didnt

oops your wrong again sunshine......maybe next time

You obviously are either blinkered or need to go to specsavers. I have watched the game back twice, and was there live, he did not alter his run in any way.