From playing the game, I can't accept that the disallowed try we had wasn't a try. It was a legitimate dummy run and good skill from Roberts. What's the attacking runner supposed to do once he's gone through, stop dead still before contacting the defender. It's impossible if your running a line at decent pace. The defenders can now know that if a dummy runner comes through they can just make sure they are hit by them and then the try won't be given. Its stupid, really is. Then they had one in open play about 2 minutes later that was more an obstruction and nothing given. Thankfully, it didn't cost us tonight but it could have. Aside from that a true champions performance tonight and I loved being there, great away atmosphere.

Thought the same thing on the night, surely if the defender makes the decision to tackle the dummy runner then its their own fault (and the point of dummy runners, to confuse the defence.) If the dummy runner takes the defender out - runs straight into him - then fair enough but last night it was the defender who made the bad decision to tackle the dummy runner. Try should have stood, and the sane voice on sky, Jon Wells, agreed!

Should have been 0-26

Exactly, a dummer runner isn't there for the fun of it, its to provide many options and keep the defence worrying which line is gonna be hit. If the defender makes a decision to take the dummy option he should then work extra hard to get over and cover the man with the ball. It rewards lazy and poor defending the current interpretation of obstructions

Think you've hit the nail on the head there re playing the game. I get the feeling a lot of the refs never have played and so don't know the art of dummy running

It was a crazy decision. I couldn't believe it when he went for a 2nd look and even more so when he looked for a 3rd time but still I thought 'well theres no way he could turn this down' and to say I was stunned to see it ruled out was an understatement.

Worst call of the year.

I think it was a very soft decision but at the same time I can see why it was given so cant really argue. There was an overlap on though and Roberts should have just passed the ball and it would have been a try in the corner anyway. After his earlier fluffed pass I just dont think he trusted himself to do so so he went himself instead.

I think that the fact Roberts jinked back in to score (rather than pass along the line) was the reason for the disallowing of the try. Gutting cause it was a really good move.

I thought the same last night. All we should do is make sure we're hit by the opposition when they're running at our line, and claim that we've been obstructed

Thats what players, for all teams including ours, have been doing for a long time anyway.

More people would have given the Amos try than disallowed it. Similarly more people would have disallowed Robinson's try than disallowed it - there was almost certainly (99%?) a knock on by Gilmour in the build-up - this was clear in one of the Sky camera angles, but not in the others. Even Eddie and Stevo thought it was a knock-on, whereas Phil Clarke thought the try should be awarded! ( Clarkey trying to show his impartiality for the benefit of Leeds fans...?!!). So Wigan yet again fail to get the benefit of the doubt from a VR.

Ironically, if there had been a VR at the Hull game, Westerman's try would almost certainly have been disallowed, and I am still not convinced that Briscoe got the ball down before part of his foot/the ball touched the in-goal dead ball line.

As has been mentioned in other posts, games are being officiated and crucial decisions made according to different sets of criteria - would it be too expensive to have some form of VR ( even without the big screen) for all SL games?

Try disallowed for running into players, Robinson tackled Hoffman and got the pen

Roberts had the ball in his hand and was moving away before the defender and dummy runner even made contact! the defender had no chance whatsoever of getting across!

Half agree here. Too many penalties are awarded where the attacking player runs into/collides with a defender who is just standing his ground. On this occasion, though, there was a slight off the ball push by Tuson on Robinson which may have then directed Robinson a bit more into Hoffman's path. A 50/50 call and I'm not surprised Thaler awarded the penalty.

I thought Thaler had a good game - he certainly wasn't intimidated by the Huddersfield fans shouting for penalties and forward passes.

Unsure if I've mis-interpreted this but couldn't the Huddersfield "try" have been disallowed for two seperate things? Prior to the Gilmour "knock-on" isn't Robinson, the try scorer, offside anyway?

He passes the ball behind from the dummy half position to Brough who puts up the bomb. Robinson then, in an offside position, runs forward in amongst the action and ends up collecting the ball to score.

Surely he's therefore offside when the kick goes up and it isn't a try? I understand Goulding knocks it back into Robinson's arms but he's offside prior to that. Or have I got this one wrong?

Yep, awful call. Watch closely and the hudds player wraps his arms around Hansen to tackle him... Hansen didn't run into him.

On a similar note the worst call of the game was not that but Robinson being 'taken out' by Hoffman. He turned around straight away and laughed.

Their try was also a no try, look at Robinsons face.... Eddie was right :O

As soon as Goulding taps it forward he plays Robinson onside so no problem with that, definite knock on before that though.

Similar to the Liam Farrell 'no try' in the GF, it will continue to confuse me for months and years to come.

Thanks for clarification.

A farce, the interpretation of the obstruction rule in general is crazy.

I agree with most of the posts on here, but also going by the letter of the rules I can see why it was disallowed. I thought it was a 50-50 call personally but what if it was the other way round and Huddersfield had a try allowed for exactly the same thing would the majority of people be saying good call or calling for the refs head on a platter?

Also with the Robinson try, am I right but it wasn't benefit of the doubt call either was it? If not that surprised me more as people have mentioned one camera shows that Gilmour appeared to knock on.

Sod Robinson look at Gilmours face. If ever there was a look that said 'B@@@@r I knocked that on' the Gilmour was sporting it!

not true, as he was inside the 10 when Goulding touched it. If someone catches a kick he doesnt play everyone onside if they are in front of the kicker, they still need to giove him 10 unless the kickers plays them all on.

There is no point having dummy runners in the game anymore as they cant be used

Don't be daft.

We used them legally to great effect for Hoffman's try when Prescott shipped the ball out, but people have got to be clever about it. If the Dummy Runner makes contact with a defender 10 metres from the line, and the try scorer goes through that gap then it's going to get chalked off.