I thought it was a try all day long.

How's McShane going for you this season, i really enjoyed watch him at Widnes last season?

No doubt in the coming weeks someone will have a very similiar try given, by ganson, probably wigan.

It was disallowed for boring (Aussie term) There was one disallowed over the weekend in Australia (I think it was Brisbane) for exactly the same offence. Basically it's the dummy half using the player who has just played the ball as a shield, and he is not allowed to make contact with that player.

Obstruction? If that's the official reason, it's wrong. Extract from the rules (here -> www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/o ... /6_scoring), specifically says ... "=#4000FFBoring through forwards - A player may pick up the ball at the base of the scrum and bore through his own forwards to ground the ball for a try" That, to me, is the same as "boring" through one forward at the PTB. Frankly, I'm getting truly p'ed off by some of the decisions on obstruction this season, which appear to be based on their "interpretation" of the rules, when there is little or no interpretation required.

Obstruction? If that's the official reason, it's wrong. Extract from the rules (here -> www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/o ... /6_scoring), specifically says ... "=#4000FFBoring through forwards - A player may pick up the ball at the base of the scrum and bore through his own forwards to ground the ball for a try" That, to me, is the same as "boring" through one forward at the PTB. Frankly, I'm getting truly p'ed off by some of the decisions on obstruction this season, which appear to be based on their "interpretation" of the rules, when there is little or no interpretation required.

It's as if they're desperately looking for reasons not to give a try.

Quite.
Wigan have been the beneficiaries of one try disallowed against them in one match and one try allowed for them in another match this season ... but where the "obstruction" was virtually identical.
In both games (IIRC) the result was very close and those decisions could well have been the decider.

couldn't have put it better myself. Inevitable!

I've given up even trying to predict whether a try will be given or not when obstruction is involved

Quote El Barbudo="El Barbudo"Obstruction? If that's the official reason, it's wrong. Extract from the rules (here -> www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/o ... /6_scoring), specifically says ... "=#4000FFBoring through forwards - A player may pick up the ball at the base of the scrum and bore through his own forwards to ground the ball for a try" That, to me, is the same as "boring" through one forward at the PTB. Frankly, I'm getting truly p'ed off by some of the decisions on obstruction this season, which appear to be based on their "interpretation" of the rules, when there is little or no interpretation required.'" Last night was simply poor marker defence, McShane went to the side of Peacock and there was nobody on the line to tackle him. Previous controller of referees says try, current controller of referees says obstruction.

Quote El Barbudo="El Barbudo"Obstruction? If that's the official reason, it's wrong. Extract from the rules (here -> www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/o ... /6_scoring), specifically says ... "=#4000FFBoring through forwards - A player may pick up the ball at the base of the scrum and bore through his own forwards to ground the ball for a try" That, to me, is the same as "boring" through one forward at the PTB. Frankly, I'm getting truly p'ed off by some of the decisions on obstruction this season, which appear to be based on their "interpretation" of the rules, when there is little or no interpretation required.'" Last night was simply poor marker defence, McShane went to the side of Peacock and there was nobody on the line to tackle him. Previous controller of referees says try, current controller of referees says obstruction.

Further to my post earlier, here's another specific about obstruction that the refs seem to ignore ...
[i"Player in possession- =#FF0000The player who is in possession of the ball cannot be guilty of obstruction. He can make use of the goal posts to avoid a tackle, or dodge behind a ruck of his own players or bore a way through his own pack."[/i

The key words here are that the player in possession CANNOT be guilty of obstruction.
Hence, for Ganson to be correct, Peacock would have to have obstructed ... and I don't see how, in playing the ball straightforwardly, he can have obstructed in this sense, any more than a goalpost could be guilty of obstruction.

Ganson wrong .... again.

Let them have top spot. 1st and second are pretty much identical the only difference is, if you both do what you should you don't have club call.