You've got the right incident. Moore was ahead of Peacock and drew the attention of a Widnes defender who then claimed an obstruction which Bentham turned down. Peacock didn't run behind Moore (which would have been an easy decision) so you're right to refer to it as a borderline call.



Surely not. Oh hang on, you're right .... it were Ganson.

__________

Peacock was in the way of a defender on the line but he can't just disappear and he has to be somewhere when playing the ball - as others have said identical looking tries will unfortunately be given on a regular basis.

Another vote here for the NRL method which I like for the same reasons as Superted gave.

There does seem to be widespread confusion among officials at what is obstruction and what isn't.

I seem to recall Stuart Cummings commenting along the lines that if a player runs behind one of his own players while in possession then that's a penalty irrespective of whether the player in front impedes a defender, which is not what the laws of the game say.

Is it time to stop fannying around with "interpretations" and just referee the game to the letter of the laws as they are written? If things need changing, change the laws of the game so everyone knows what they are and how they are being applied.

That is my point exactly. The refs are bottling making decisions. The McGuire crossing was a great example, the ref played on, and if he had been tackled 1 meter short, we'd have still had the ball, so the ref obviously thought it wasn't obstruction. Our current system allows him to then bottle it once the try is scored - he should be made to make his decision clear before asking for confirmation - using the NRL method would I believe have led to Mcguires try being allowed, and the refs original call standing.

Another positive of the NRL system is that the number of times a ref's call is proved to be incorrect can be used as part of performance management, with real specific feedback on why they got the call wrong (bad positioning, wrong interpretation, or just unlucky) - that to me is how the officials could then improve. It would also allow the RFL to identify the more regular poor performers.

The above is an excellent point.
In cricket they analyse each umpire's performance under the DRS system to weed out those who consistently make incorrect decisions.

I am happy to accept the crossing decision. My understanding is that crossing leads to a penalty. Where the players were made it a borderline case but I accept the decision, my gripe is with the pass behind a player which is effectively obstruction but goes unpunished, that is where they need to clean up the rules /interpretations.

Bravo. Good point well made.

Peacock clearly moves diagonally forward after he plays the ball. Not only does this then create a space for McShane to dive straight forward into the space Peacock has just created but Peacock moves towards and obstructs a Widnes defender.

A player who plays the ball cannot remain in the same position he was when he stood up. It's impossible. The act of standing up and flicking one foot backwards in an attempt to play the ball is going to shift your weight forward and force you to take at least one step to regain your balance.

I have watched RL since 1977 but up until now i have never ever seen so many contentious decisions being awarded and mainly due to Sky tv covering games whereby the ref can ask for clarification on mainly any play directly leading to a try being scored.

These interpretations are clearly not consistent throughout the season and we often see a try being awarded by a video referee's decision that was previously chalked off in previous games?

Our Referees have about the same knowledge as us fans as to what laws and how they are interpreted each week I'm afraid

Could a try be disallowed very soon because the video ref decided that a fan in the crowd deemed that a fan was waving a flag in the terraces at the time and thus distracting a players view

Bentham went to the video-ref for several absolutely obvious decisions, on both sides. I wonder if this is connected to the fact that the video-ref is his boss.

Had he been distracted by a Gran ?

Peacock plays the ball and does move very slightly right and maybe an inch or two forward ... just as we see week-in and week-out as a player straightens-up from the PTB.
McShane collects from the PTB and dummies left, two defenders buy that dummy and move that way but McShane goes straight through the gap that they left, to the left of Peacock.
A Widnes defender to the right of Peacock then bumps into and tackles Peacock at the same moment as McShane is already crossing the tryline and they fall over the now-prostrate McShane's hips.
That defender to Peacock's right only moves towards Peacock after McShane's dummy and during McShane's dive for the line. The two strides distance that the defender would have had to make meant that he could not have stopped the already-horizontal McShane anyway.

Not only that but when Bentham puts the square in the air, he only asks for the grounding to be checked and, if I'm right on that, it means that Ganson has exceeded his remit and made a judgement he was not asked to make and then compounded it by getting it wrong.

He's not.

Jon Sharp is controller of referees - hence Neil Hudgell's thinly veiled accusation of Hull FC bias after Magic Weekend.

Ganson is - IIRC - head of match official development, i.e. in charge of the pathway for future match officials from first referees course to SL

It really is simple it was a try .Steve goonson can not stop his brain from farting.