One possible solution is that you can't go to the video ref for obstruction and the on field officials have to make a decision on the run of play, not unlike forward passes. Like all such decisions they'll get some right and some wrong but at least it would need to be a clear obstruction (rather than what seems to be becoming more and more a technical infringement) to be called and it would certainly prevent the endless shots of two blokes in suits watching a big screen. 12 minutes 'extra time' in one half alone has gone beyond a joke!

That a try has been scored 20 meters away from the crossing or obstruction. Brian Carney is a nightmare for saying just get on with it been passed 3 times since the obstruction or crossing.

Rule is:

Don't run behind your own player (crossing)

catch the ball on the outside shoulder and the dummy runner has to get through the defensive line by running at the inside shoulder of the defender. (obstruction)

To me its fairly simple and the only people who are being inconsistent is the fans who all have a different understanding of the rules or they try and compare it to incidents from 2 seasons ago.

If you catch the ball on the outside shoulder it cannot be obstruction! It's simple and straightforward.

They go to the video ref for the brough kick out on the full but not the Giants self made - Wigan knock on. Consistency please ref, that self made knock on changed that half

Exactly what I was going to post. Gamechanger that knock on decision but still soft defence from us.

Some absolutely shocking decisions by the officials tonight. Dear oh dear.

The Bowen try should have been a 8 pointer, he had his head ripped off in the act of scoring. The boys have gone now

I was at the Hudds game so I am probably not in the best place to comment but Found the inconsistency surrounding the use of the video ref worrying. When there is clear foul play I always thought that the ref could look at the screen. When a Wigan man was tackled without the ball, and probably taken above horizontal, I expected the ref to have a look but instead Mr Thaler stood with his back to the screen. This was different to what happened to us last weekend. Mr Thaler may have already seen another infringement but I thought that foul play always trumped a technical infringement. Later in the game Mr Thaler could be clearly seen watching the screen for another off the ball incident.
Similarly we were penalised for obstruction when defending a kick but a Huddersfield defender, just a few minutes after, was able to do the same thing without censure. I know that it is difficult to compare incidents but running across the defender and then turning so that you can back into the attacker seems pretty much premeditated. As for crossing/obstruction, both teams would have been pulled up frequently tonight if the same standards were being applied as just last week.

The first disallowed try for supposed obstruction was one of the most baffling I have ever witnessed. How can it possibly be obstruction if you don't cross??? The problem was Huddersfield defenders had rushed out into the attacking line and found themselves blocked in a sideways route. That's a bad defensive read! If they'd gone for the right man they'd have had a clear route to him!

There are more kinds of obstruction than crossing. We had 2 players in their defensive line, a defender was prevented from having the opportunity of making the tackle. Me may not have been able to get there but under the current interpretation the penalty was the correct decision.

So he can't run behind his own player, he can't run in a direct line, what was he supposed to do? Stand still and take the tackle?

To be fair we didn't get the rub of the green with the decisions and the officials did sort of ringroad them into the game.

However after that we were second best for a long, long period so we cant have too many complaints.

One of them days that's probably best to just draw a line under and move on etc.

Watch It again. SOL was stood still in their defensive line, he's not allowed to do that so in that case a penalty was the correct decision.

Overall we didn't get the rub if the green from the referee. A few poor decisions certainly helped them back into the gam but that one was correct.

SOL doesn't appear to move from the point the ball is played until the try is scored. He just stood in the attacking line. hudds rushed up and were saved by an inept refering decision (at the very least it should have gone to the VR).

I will have to re watch the incident later but I could have sworn our players were not in the defensive line. The way I remember it, Huddersfield players put themselves in a position were they're were stood with attackers between themselves and the ball carrier in a sideways or diagonal line.

I was under the impression that obstruction had to take place in a forward direction. That's why we ask "was the ball caught on the outside shoulder" because if it is then the obstructing line is diagonal, not straight, and if that's the case it's the defender who has positioned himself badly.

Personally I see last night as rewarding a poor defensive read, but I shall see when I watch it back.

I will add, however, that we played very poorly at times and were our own worst enemy, failing to complete sets and do the basics right, which is what has been winning us games. That said, with some overworked "kids" and some periods of very poor play, along with some awful decisions which did actually lead directly to tries, we only lost by 9 points.

Just get rid of the Video refs, let the refs get on with it, let human error take its course and move onto the next game.

The game has been around over a hundred years so i dont see any problem.

If we have to use technology then use it just as a performance reviewing tool for the refs to try and help them improve.

At the moment we only have video refs at Televised games so there is an unfair / fair advantage to those games .

Its all or nothing no half d measures

I've watched it again and I'm 100% it wasn't obstruction. Lockers makes a dummy run, he runs a straight line and doesn't stop. Powell runs at the side of Lockers towards the try line, at no pint running behind him. McGilvary runs diagonally straight at Lockers and collides with him.

Well I've had my ask the ref question answered, pretty unsatisfactorily.

Apparently if a dummy runner is ahead of the ball (which is always) and obstructs a defender, it's obstruction. This begs the question, why do they check whether the ball was caught on the outside shoulder and rule against obstruction if it was? I always took the reason to be that if the defender is blocked on a diagonal angle it's his bad defensive read, but going by this answer any collision with a dummy runner is an automatic obstruction.

They check whether ball was caught on the outside shoulder to judge whether the defender was given an opportunity to make the tackle. It is the dummy runner's job to find a gap and not initiate contact with the defender.

Still in the past - you cut out the second bit of what I said, which goes against what you said. The dummy runner shouldn't initiate contact with the defender, that doesn't mean a defender initiating contact with the dummy runner counts as obstruction

The dummy runner didn't initiate contact. He ran in a straight line downfield. The defender ran a diagonal line into the dummy runner. Besides which, the explanation from the referees makes no provision for initiating contact, it just says that if the dummy runner is ahead of the ball and prevents a defender from making the tackle either intentionally or unintentionally it's obstruction. Does that sound right to you? To me that says every dummy runner is an obstruction if the defender falls for it.

I like the video ref I think it adds drama to the game, just do away with going to it for obstruction.
Anyway Ben Thaler is video ref for cup tie v. Cas so we're stuffed.

Also the Hapless Mr Hicks is TJ again.

If the defender initiates contact then the dummy runner isn't preventing him from making a tackle, he's just chosen the wrong tackle to make.